Animal Liberation Rhetorical Analysis

1262 Words6 Pages
Pollan opens the chapter attempting to eat a steak while reading Singer’s Animal Liberation. He talks about how most meat eaters haven’t experienced any dilemmas or guilt from eating meat mainly because they haven’t been involved in the process of turning meat into food. People are a lot less likely to eat the meat after they are aware of what happens in the slaughter houses. Vegetarianism and animal rightists are becoming more popular than ever. Our society’s culture traditions have always been that animals are “good to eat as well as good to think”, but that is rapidly changing. Recently questions have been raised by medical researchers about the nutritional value of meat and if it actually is good for us. Along with that organizations,…show more content…
Pollan argues that this separation between humans and animals has made it easier for people to consume meat, but the loss of contact has also confused the relationships between humans and other species. Pollan refers to an essay called, “Why look at Animals?” where the author John Berger emphasized the importance of contact, especially eye contact, with animals as a way to remind us of our similarities and differences. This relationship allowed us to honor and eat animals but nowadays it looks as if we must look away or become…show more content…
The first line was the question why humans should treat animals more ethically than they treat themselves. Animals eat each other so there shouldn’t be a problem with us eating them too. But actually there is a problem with that; animals eat other animals because they are carnivores and they need to for survival, humans don’t need to eat animals to survive. The next objection is the idea that being in the wild would be worse for these domestic creatures. Domestic creatures cannot survive in the wild so without us eating them these animals wouldn’t survive at all. The next defense is that animals in factory farms don’t know any other life so they wouldn’t know any better. Although they might not be in the wild these animals still have their natural instincts and feel the need to perform certain activities. And the last defensive line that he covers is that our world is full of problems and human related ones should come first. The fact that we have the option of choosing our food shows us as the moral animal, as a different creature who is able to obtain the idea of “rights.” This is where you’re faced with the idea of the AMC again. These humans cannot understand morals and ethics anymore than a monkey but they still have all the same rights. They are considered an exception because we consider them one of us, we all have and/or will be in there same situation,

More about Animal Liberation Rhetorical Analysis

Open Document