English // Critical and Rhetorical Analysis of Michael Pollan and Peter Singer
[Student]
[Professor]
[Course]
[Date]
Critical and Rhetorical Analysis of Michael Pollan and Peter Singer on Animal Issues
For people who follows the news and current events, they are always waiting for the next big story. The same goes with advocates for a cause who are probably looking for the next advocacy to support and sponsor. In the case of Peter Singer, it was Animal Liberation. Critics of Singer’s advocacy argued the absurdity of the points raised by the author in his article entitled, “All Animals are Equal”. Animal Liberation, which seeks the protection of animals against cruelty and harm of all forms (Singer) was considered the “Next Frontier”. This was after the flamboyant display of massive protests and rallies in support and against several causes like Black Movement, the Women Struggle and the Feminist Movement, and the fight on Gender Equality. Singer was able to draw enough attention with his appeal to animal lovers and animal advocates suggesting that it is time to take action and take the fight to a much higher level. Nevertheless, the core of the critical point of the whole campaign was centered on how common and acceptable practices like animal consumption would be classified as a mark of barbarism.
Equal Rights: Human Beings and Animals
According to Micheal Pollan, Singer’s argument is absurd. The basic tenets of using suffering to establish a cause could not be justified. Pollan further argued that syllogisms on human enjoyment for consumption of animal products is analogous to enjoying the sufferings that the animals had to endure during the butchering should be warranted as obscene and unfounded (Pollan). Singer was trying to imply that because an individual enjoys eating steak it also follows that this person enjoys the thought of having an innocent animal killed to satisfy his craving.
Human nourishment is not a whim. It is a vital key to survival. Human beings need to eat in order to survive. Hence, this is the basic tenets in the Darwin’s Theory of Survival or Natural Selection. Furthermore, to ensure proper nutrition and adequate nourishment, people need to consume a certain amount of meat products which is their source for protein and minerals. Hence, to survive people need to consume such products. Pollan was right in his argument when he said that it would highly be preposterous to consume human beings because then that is cannibalism. However, this is beside the point. The point is a there are humane ways for minimizing the pain that animals had to go through for the purpose of food consumption. Furthermore, there is a law that sets the boundaries for which animals can be utilized for the purpose of food consumption and nourishment. In the same manner, there is also a law that specifies the acceptable means and approach to go through with the process. Any use of excessive pain on animals in the process of butchering them for food is punishable by law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is within the scope and boundaries of animal welfare to assert that indeed animals should be protected and minimal pain and suffering should be applied during the process of food preparation. However, to argue that human beings and animals should enjoy equal rights is absurd. It is almost an assurance or permission that human beings can be killed to be fed to animals for consumption. This is when Singer draws the line and when any civilized society have to take a stand and defend what is only rightful and just. Before people take up causes on equality, it is best to understand the definition of equality.
Work Cited
Pollan, Michael. “An Animal’s Place.” The New York Times Magazine 10 November 2002: 58. Print.
Singer, Peter. “All Animals are Equal.” Reagan, Tom and Peter Singer. Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Hooboken, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1989. 148-162. Print.
2017/1179
