Animal Cruelty in "On Eating Animals" by Namid Arora

On Eating Animals, by Namit Arora, discussion of carnivorous diets and modern factory settings are explored. The article first discusses the story of a cow who escaped the treacherous factory far, and then goes into detail about how farms have changed overtime. What was once an efficient and patient business is now a profitable and impatient one. Profits override safety and humane conditions in the meat industry. Animals are left in unbearable conditions, and fed chemicals to promote rapid growth. Money should certainly not be the only focus in such factory farming. Animals deserve rights, because it has been proven, that, they too can feel pain like humans. The author explores several subtopics and realities of this business and public opinion as well (Arora, 2013). Through the use of logos, pathos, and ethos, the author provides sufficient evidence of animal cruelty. Arora is not anti-meat, rather, anti-cruelty.

The purpose of this essay is to showcase the cruelties animals face before slaughter. The author wants audiences to realize what harm animals must endure prior to being served on their plates. The author’s stance is serious and informative. She is certainly not against eating meat, because she never claims so in the article. However, she does not feel that the current method of farming is justified. The tone of this article has components of seriousness and relaxed as well. In the beginning a story is used, which, to some degree, is quite humorous. However, the relaxed setting certainly goes down hill towards the end of it. The remainder of the essay is set in a more serious and sad tone compared to the initial piece. In my opinion, the intended audiences of this selection include meat eaters. I say this, because, those who do not indulge in the consumption of meat products certainly know this information. However, I am sure that vegetarians, as well as carnivores can learn a fact or two from this story.

The author utilizes the rhetorical devices of logos, pathos, and ethos in this article to help prove her points. Logos refers to logic. This is demonstrated when the author discusses facts to showcase the situations of escaped animals. In the beginning of this essay, Arora discussed how six cows escaped at one time, and their punishments for doing so. According to Arora (2013): “Some years ago in Omaha, six cows escaped at once. Five were quickly recaptured; one kept running until Omaha police cornered her in an alley and pumped her with bullets. The cow, bellowing miserably and hobbling like a drunk for several seconds before collapsing, died on the street in a pool of blood” (Arora, p.1, 2013). We can tell that this instance is factual in nature, because many individuals reported to have witnessed it. This appeal through logic reveals to audiences the cruelty animals face. Facts are highly essential to credibility in articles, especially ones such as this. Audiences will not respond well to articles on topics such as this without the utilization of facts. Primarily because no one wants to admit their support for such corrupt and inhumane practices.

The author also uses the rhetorical device of pathos in this article. Pathos is an appeal made through emotion. The author amplified such strategies when discussing the ‘animal lovers’ of America. Arora stated (2013): “It’s tempting to see these commiserating folks as animal lovers—and that’s how they likely see themselves—until one remembers what they eat for dinner. A typical slaughterhouse in the United States kills over a thousand Molly’s a day—lined up, shot in the head, and often cut open and bled while still conscious, an end no less cruel and full of bellowing—all because Americans keep buying neatly-packaged slices of their corpses in supermarkets” (Arora, p.1, 2013). Through emotion, the author showcases how many individuals feel about such cases. That is, that most people do not realize that their indirect actions enable such inhumane practices. Not only does this show, the somewhat sarcastic nature of the audience, but also her emotional side. She uses pathos in this argument to provide the necessary realizations of audiences. That if they don’t protest or demand changes, they are simply just as bad as the companies selling these products.

Lastly, the author utilizes the rhetorical strategy of ethos, or ethics in such matters. Ethics is concerned with right and wrong, and it is easy to conclude that this entire argument is based upon factors of ethics. However, one of the stronger points made by the author regarding such, would certainly be when she discussed pets vs. food. According to Arora (2013): “Yet the idea persists that Americans love animals, largely because of their love and concern for a class of animals called “pets” (and other “cute” animals like dolphins, polar bears, and pandas). Most Americans have had at least one pet at some point in their lives, and many see their pets as extensions of their families; they photograph their pets, swap stories about them, buy them gifts and treats, spend money on their illnesses, support taxes to build shelters for them, and mourn their deaths” (Arora, p.1, 2013). Ethics is used, because two situations are provided regarding how we treat our pets, and how we treat our food. Ethics will tell you that equality should be consistent in such situations.

In conclusion, the author is not some PETA support, who guilts audiences to stop their consumption of meat. However, she does want audiences to realize the process of cruelty involved in modern faming. Arora is an activist for animal rights, and speaking for those who do not have the ability to speak for themselves. Through the use of ethos, pathos, and logos, the author provides convincing information regarding animal’s treatment. Animals deserve to have humane living conditions and slaughter methods that promote the least amount of pain possible.