Rincon 1
Kristy Rincon
Composition II 1302-480
Jennifer Bray
March 29, 2011
Rhetorical Analysis Essay-Animal Rights
Since the beginning of time, humans and animals have co-existed with one another. Humans evolving from hunter-gatherer groups into agricultural settlements lived among animals that played important roles in these ever changing societies. Humans turned creatures who merely co-existed among humans into companion creatures and then into agricultural commodities through breeding, artificial selection and taming techniques. As human society industrialized the exploitation of animals increased. Scientists began using animals in experiments to test and develop medications and cosmetics. Animals were put into zoological parks serving the dual purposesof academia andentertainment. Humans have used economic, philosophical and serviceable justifications for the exploitationofanimals (food, clothing, entertainment and experimentation) but even thoughanimalproducts comprise a significant percentageof theworld economy advances in science and technology have made it increasingly possibleforhumans to survive without the exploitation of animals.(Issitt, Newton)Two trains of thought have emerged on the subject of animals and their use within society, that is, that animals areliving sensory creatures withthecapacity to experience pain, suffering , joy and happiness and should treated with respect and deserve to be affordedthedignity and the right of fair and humane treatment. The other says that animals are merely serviceable creatures in a lesser position, entirely useful commodities, and to endow them with “human” like qualities is to elevate their status in society. Animals are useful, no more no less.
The Animal Rights Movement began in the United States in the early nineteenth century and was finally recognized in 1822 when the Ill-Treatment of Cattle Act was passed. This act was sponsored by Richard Martin who formed some of the first animal-protection societies and laws (ironically he was a lifelong hunter). He also passed a bill in 1826 to preventthecruel and improper mistreatment of dogs. As time went on more societies sprang into being. For example, the ASPCA (American SocietyforthePreventionofCruelty toAnimals) founded in 1866, was formed to bring attention to the issue of animal rights. The founder of the ASPCA, Henry Burgh, said their mission is “to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States.”The ASPCA was the first humane organization to be granted legal authority to investigate and make arrests for crimes against animalsusing a nonviolent approach. Another animal rights group is ALF (AnimalLiberation Front) which was established in Great Britain. Unlike the ASPCA, the group ALF takes more a more physical or proactive approach whentrying to further their protestations of animal cruelty. They have illegally disrupted the work of animal testing laboratories and committed over 1,200 criminal acts of record since 1976 and caused approximately $110 million in damages. The biggest (and most controversial) animal organization however is PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) which was founded in 1980. They are against animals being used for food, clothing, experiments, and entertainment.PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement and protest campaigns. (Rich, Wagner)
These divergent groups of thought calling to theattention of society the cruel and inhumane practices inflicted on animalsis seen by many as correct but the issue isnot in the message of inhumanity and cruelty but howthese groups are delivering that message. These three divergent groups of thought, those that advocate a more or calm and rational approach to dealing with animal issues (ASPCA), those who advocate a more proactive or physical approach to eradicating animal cruelty in all its forms (ALF) and those that disavow any and all use of animals (PETA) all advocate and promote the idea that animals are deserving of humane and ethical treatment, but how they differ is in their approach to their goal.
The ASPCA delivers their rhetoric visually. Their television commercials are aimed at mainstream America. These commercials are visually riveting. They depict what is not often deemed politically correct to see, that is, the true result of neglect and cruelty. The message is delivered in soft focus and the delivery is benign (TV) but the message is hard driven. The audience is shown footage of animals that have been abused and neglected.The commercials message “Everyday in America thousands of animals suffer from cruelty and neglect” is the mantra of the organization. The song “In the Arms of an Angel” by Sarah McLachlan plays throughout the commercial. The songtells about someone who has been hurt and is then saved by an angel and brought to safer place. In this case, the angel is the person who donates to the ASPCA. The narrator is the woman who sings the song, Sarah McLachlan. She says that for a small fee (60 cents a day) we can save an animal’s life. Also, as an incentive, the ASPCA will give you a picture of the animal you helped save and a free t-shirt and wristband. This commercial helps to motivate and encourages the audience using visual imagery. The footage of the animals is so heartbreaking. We feel for the animals because even though they can’t cry, we can see all the pain they are feeling in their eyes. It makes you feel good and special knowing that you helped an abused animal recover and start a new life. The ASPCA wants the people to be the voice of the animals and show that they deserve to be treated with love and respect.
ALF’s methods of promoting their cause of animal rights also uses visual rhetoric, however their visuals are graphic and disturbing images meant to shock and disturb the viewer to action. Their methods of liberating animals include unlawful, unorthodox and extreme measures. It gives them an image that is angry, aggressive and confrontational even though their intentions are good. A common depiction is a man wearing a mask holding an animal they havejust saved from an animal lab, factory or fur farm, etc. Their intentions are misinterpret greatly. For some it’s a man who saved an innocent animal’s life but for others they see a thug. The animal’s savior doesn’t seem kind or pleasant at all even if he’s holding a cute little puppy. Also, the mask and clothing he is wearing makes him look mysterious and shady, like someone you wouldn’t trust. That is the point, ALF means business when it comes to saving animals and they want people to know that they are serious in their intentions and a group to take serious.It’s a gritty image and tgives people the idea of how violent and serious the members of ALF can be.
PETA’s rhetoric is more celebrity driven. For example, PETA is against people wearing animal fur and they have a popular slogan that says “I’d rather be naked than wear fur.” They have many different celebrities who posenude for posters with this slogan. This grabs the audience’s attention because they may see their favorite celebrity on these posters and then they may tend to follow what their favorite celebrity is advocating.This both educates and catches the audience’s attention when they see these types of posters or billboards. This also shows PETA’s type of visual rhetoric. It isn’t just wearing fur either, PETA has these types of celebrity advertisements against eating meat, caging animalsand using animals for entertainment. Each poster has a celebrity on it (usually posing nude) to grab the audience’s attention. They use celebrity and fame to make sure their opinions are seen and heard by the public.
The ASPCA, ALF, and PETA each fight for the rights of animals to be treated with respect and kindness. The Animal Rights Movement has the right to raise social and philosophical questions about the value of life and the consequences of human behavior.The problem they have is that the movement’s extreme views and its members willingness to resort to violence. T undermines the principles for which they really stand.Extreme positions, principles and methods used to convey the ideas tend to distance morepeoplethan they convince.Ensuringthewelfareofanimalsis an importantethical responsibility, buttheconceptofnaturalrightsforanimalsis a flawed philosophy.Themost extreme implicationsofnaturalrightsforanimals threaten to shut downtheprogressofmedical research and blurthe distinctions we naturally and correctly make betweentheway we treat membersofour own species and thoseofother species.(Lee, Cushman) Most supporters ofanimalrights oppose allanimalexperimentationand believe that animals should be entitled to the same respect for life and liberty provided to humans.(Driscoll, Finley) PETA and ALF are the groups who despise medical research on animals and wish to put an end to it. The purpose of animal testing is to find cures for human diseases like AIDS, cancer and Alzheimer's disease.Each year, approximately 25 million animals are used for research, experimentation, and education according to the United States Humane Society. (Rich, Wagner) Jerry Vlasak, a member of ALF quoted in 2004 as saying that it would be worth killing ten or fifteen medical researchers in order to savethe livesofmillionsofanimals.The American CollegeofSurgeons state that theuseofanimalsin research and education cannot be completely replaced intheforeseeable future. Vital, lifesaving cancer and HIV studies,forinstance, depend ontheuseofliveanimalsin order to provethesafety and efficacyofnew medications. (Lee, Cushman) These people who believe that it is not only ethical but life-saving do not hate animals; their feeling is that we should put humans first before we think of the animal’s welfare.
A cartoon of a group of guinea pigs protesting and holding picket signs saying “humans have rights”, “we want our jobs back”, “stop, this is cruelty to scientists” and “save our farm”. This cartoon shows the other side of the coin when it comes to the positions of ALF and PETA. Animal testing may not seem humane but is necessary in order to find cures that can save lives. Most people who support animal rights are not necessarily professional philosophers or animal rights activists, many in the general public seem to have imbibed a watered down version of the antihuman animus promoted by radical environmentalism. (pg. 101, Machan) People have good intentions but are misinformed.
Each of these groups has very individually powerful rhetoric but the one that made the most impact is the ASPCA’s commercial. No one can watch this commercial without shedding a tear. The footage of the injured animals is just so powerful it touches a soft spot in people’s hearts. Animalsunable to fend for themselves, makesus sad and angry. We can’t comprehend what the attacker was thinking when he/she injured or neglected it. It makes us want to help the animal and give a new fresh start in life. As for PETA, many people understand and somewhat agree with PETA’s stand yet find they are too radical and extreme in their views. They respect the fact that they want to help animals but they take it too far. No celebrity can totally convince the public that PETA’s views on animal rights are mainstream and correct.Alf’s methods are just too hostile and radical for most of the general public.
The issue of animal right’s is a complicated and complex issue. Each group employs a method of persuasion that best fits their members’ philosophy on the issue. Each group draws an audience to their position by their persuasive and passionate rhetoric; their rhetoric ultimately will make or break the case for each of these individual groups.
Aronson, Jamie. "Point: The Fight for Animal Rights."Points of View Reference Center. 2009. Web. 20 Feb. 2011.
Driscoll, Sally, and Laura Finley. "Animal Experimentation: An Overview."Points of View: Animal Experimentation(2009): 1.Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 11 Mar. 2011.
Issitt, Micah, and Heather Newton. "Point: Animals Deserve the Same Rights as Humans."Points of View: Animal Rights(2009): 2.Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 11 Mar. 2011.
Lee, M., and C. Ames Cushman. "Counterpoint: Animals Do Not Have Rights."Points of View: Animal Rights(2009): 3.Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 11 Mar. 2011.
Regan, Tom.The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California, 1983.Print
Rich, Alex K., and Geraldine Wagner. "Animal Rights: An Overview."Points of View: Animal Rights(2009): 1.Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 11 Mar. 2011.
Wright, George, and Steve Hoagland. "Counterpoint: Animal Testing Is Cruel and Immoral Regardless of the Benefits Associated With It."Points of View: Animal Experimentation(2009): 3.Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 11 Mar. 2011.