A quick comparison to Vicki Hearne’s “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights? ” to Peter Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status”, might indicate Hearne’s argument is stronger due to her strategic and effective use of emotional appeals (i. e. pathos).
These appeals allow Hearne to connect quickly and easily with her audience. Hearne is also quite clever in terms of stressing her occupation as an animal trainer. However, after a swift comparison of the two articles, it is evident that Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status” offers readers a stronger and more valid argument.
Both Singer and Hearne are arguing their position on animal rights and the extent of human involvement. Since Hearne’s article is primarily based on her attempt to persuade her audience through an (overwhelming amount of) emotional appeals, and the use of irrelevant and somewhat confusing anecdotes, her article fails to provide concise, factual, real-world evidence. This causes the reader to find many contradictions and loopholes in her argument. Singer, alternatively, supports his argument with well-researched facts and relevant references. Therefore, Singer’s article is ultimately more successful.
In short, I will argue that Singer is able to argue much more effectively and convincingly his position through the use of facts, as well as the use of relevant references. Vicki Hearne argues that an animal’s happiness the responsibility of humans, and comes from “satisfactions that come from work…” (59).
The Essay on Animals Include Scientists Argument
For the past 20 years, there has been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical. Whether it is or in't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new ...
As well as the notion that animal rights are incorrect and in fact do the opposite of making the animals quality of life better. She evidently believes that animals are entitled to a pursuit of happiness (as she compares to the US Declaration of Independence).
This is ultimately achieved by being domesticated, put to some sort of work or training regime, and able to live a longer life (in comparison to the lifespan of a wild animal) by reaping the benefits of medicine and a social life. Through the abundant use of ethos and pathos appeal, she attempts to reinforce her argument that animal rights are wrong. Hearne emphasizes her occupation as an animal trainer, in supporting her claim as to knowing the true key to an animal’s happiness. She even goes to label the Humane Society “the pound, the place with the decompression chamber or the lethal injections.
” (61) as she attempts to influence the readers emotional side. In “Speciesism and Moral Status”, Peter Singers argument is that when it comes to the value of life, we should not discriminate in regards to species, and cognitive ability should play some role in moral status. In comparison to humans with “profound mental disabilities” (Singer 569), the use of the gorilla Koko’s higher IQ score, not needing constant supervision, or border collies being able to provide useful work to society, serves as a strong logos appeal regarding the relationship between cognitive ability and moral status.
Singer is effectively able to support his claims by continuously referencing respected philosophers and individuals such as Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and even Pope John Paul II. Validity and integrity are very much solidified in Singers article with the use of counter arguments as well as alternate views to his own arguments. The structure and information Singer provides is clear and organized, and does not leave his audience confused due to the strong use of factual, relevant support of his argument.
In Vicki Hearne’s article, some may agree with the argument she makes as her pathos appeal may be sufficient in engaging with the emotional side of the reader and creating a personal connection. However, significant contradictions can be found throughout her work, making Singers argument the stronger of the two. We cannot know for sure what makes a non-human animal happy, or what they consider “satisfaction” as we cannot comprehend the level of consciousness which they possess.
The Essay on Animals in our life
Animals play an extremely important part in the lives of humans. We may not realize how much impact animals have on our lives. They have played various roles; that of a friend, companion, protector, comforter, and more. Addressing people who are not animal lovers, I would say it is very difficult to explain what joy an animal can bring to one's life. Pets impact human lives on a face-to-face basis ...
She relies heavily on the assumption that because she is an animal trainer, this is enough validity for her arguments without providing any facts or reliable findings. Singer clearly addresses his argument, explains in detail his reasoning for why he holds this position, and provides trustworthy evidence (such as the use of findings from the American Association on Intellectual and developmental Disabilities, to support his claim of Koko the gorilla) which cannot be denied.
Singer’s successful use of logos provides the audience with a strong, rich, and easy to understand argument opposed to the overwhelming use of pathos and ethos exhausted throughout Hearne’s work. Thus demonstrating that the strongest, most effective articles, are successful when facts, logic, and relevant references are used as the premise of the argument.
