While reading the packet of articles we were given, has anyone else noticed that a majority of each of the articles is the writer trying to appeal to our emotions? At first glance, the articles seem to have a neutral standpoint on the issue, but once I started annotating, I noticed that there are subtle hints here and there that kind of lean towards treating animals with complete equality or to stop animal testing. The clearest example I read pertaining to this was in paragraph 15 in A Change of Heart about Animals, by Jeremy Rifkin. "And for the thousands of animals subjected each year to painful laboratory experiments? Or the millions of domestic animals raised under the most inhumane conditions and destined for slaughter and human consumption?" He goes on to question the reader about the inhumane and terrible ways that animals are treated. But, a completely different tone has been established after this paragraph. Prior to paragraph 5, the article seemed neutral and was simply stating facts, noting scientists, and describing different studies. But, after reading the paragraph, I felt discouraged to finish the article. The repetition of questions and examples led me to think that Rifkin was using an appeal to pathos to sway us to recognize that animals should be treated equally. He finished his point by ending the article with "The human journey is, at its core, about the extension of empathy to broader and more inclusive domains." So, overall I just felt that whether he meant to or not, Rifkin included his opinion in the article and used it against the reader to make them feel or see the issue as he does.
The other article that had a clear example of pathos was Of Primates and Personhood...
I think that using an appeal to pathos was an affective way to sway the reader into looking at the issue differently, and that the examples included in the articles were clear enough make us feel bad or agree on different points.
I agree that the articles TRY to take neutral standpoints, but it is most obvious in Of Primates and Personhood… that Yong was using his opinion as the only side of the story in the entire article. Although he mentioned that some animal research actually does help humans progress towards a healthier society, he fires back with a biologist who says that if research on apes is not right, then… “This means obtaining early embryos from apes by surgical termination of pregnancy.” Other than that, he uses both logos and pathos to persuade his audience to agree with his opinion on animal rights. Yong stated, “All creatures that can feel pain should have a basic moral status.” He believes that it is only logical if ALL creatures feel the pain we feel, they deserve to have the same rights we have, whether or not they are as intellectual as the other mammals. To go more in depth, Yong does not use only one or two examples of pathos, but his whole article is buried in them. In one example, he incorporated countries around the world who are large activists in animals rights, like the Green Party in the Germany, whereas he implies that the United States is a country who is “falling behind”, in a sense that it is an still an ongoing controversy. His goal was to make his American audience feel bad because they are not following what the rest of the crowd (foreign countries) is doing. From what I have read, it feels like Yong is so biased that we were not exposed to the beneficial sides of animal research as well as other animal uses humans have.
ReplyDelete