In Michael Pollan’s “An Animal’s Place” Pollan provides an argument on whether or not Americans should consume animals, and specifically, if the fashion in which animals are farmed and slaughtered respects their capacity to suffer. Pollan illustrates his personal dilemma particularly when he ironically points his debate on whether or not to eat meat began while he was dining at a steakhouse. To develop his argument, Pollan initially exclusively uses the citation of animal rights activists, but then gradually cites experts that support his conclusion that Americans eat animals as long as the principle behind it is correct, and animals are treated with respect. He asserts to accomplish respecting animals that Americans need to regain their contact
…show more content…
Initially in “An Animal’s Place, Pollan cites supporters of animal rights to refute his initial argument that animals were inferior to humans. In that instance, Pollan cites a poll done by critically acclaimed John Zogby, American public opinion pollster, which “found that 5 percent of Americans believe that primates are entitled to the same rights as human children (par. 7).” This poll proved that a little over half of the American population saw that primates were equal to humans, which refutes Pollan initial argument. Continuing on the matter of whether or not animals were equal to humans, he employed a citation from an essay, “Why Look at Animals?” written by English critic John Berger where he stated, “Upon this paradox people built a relationship in which they felt they could both honor and eat animals without looking away. But that accommodation has pretty much broken down: nowadays, it seems, we either look away or become vegetarians (par. 10).” In this instance, again, Pollan cites an expert who refutes his claim by stating that we no longer connect with animals, not even by looking into their eyes when they are killed, which results in Americans either to continue to consuming animals or vowing not to …show more content…
This conversation with the reader is exemplified when Pollan asks, “Even though these people [limited mental function] cannot reciprocate our moral attentions, we nevertheless include them in our circle of our moral consideration. So on what basis do we exclude the chimpanzees (par. 15)?” Here directly asks the reader to analyze and judge whether or not Americans are wrong for excluding animals like chimpanzees from “marginal cases”, when humans include other humans who have limited mental functions in our moral consideration. Pollan also questions the reader when he states, “But what happens when the choice is between “a lifetime of suffering for a nonhuman animal and the gastronomic preference of a human being?” You look away -- or you stop eating animals. And if you don’t want to do either (par. 32)?” By questioning the reader on their preferences, he is really asking the reader if they only consider their preferences over the preferences of another. This tone of a conversation, where questions are posed to the reader, allows them to form an opinion on the argument and connect to the essay. Pollan’s style is thus effective in establishing his
Initially in “An Animal’s Place, Pollan cites supporters of animal rights to refute his initial argument that animals were inferior to humans. In that instance, Pollan cites a poll done by critically acclaimed John Zogby, American public opinion pollster, which “found that 5 percent of Americans believe that primates are entitled to the same rights as human children (par. 7).” This poll proved that a little over half of the American population saw that primates were equal to humans, which refutes Pollan initial argument. Continuing on the matter of whether or not animals were equal to humans, he employed a citation from an essay, “Why Look at Animals?” written by English critic John Berger where he stated, “Upon this paradox people built a relationship in which they felt they could both honor and eat animals without looking away. But that accommodation has pretty much broken down: nowadays, it seems, we either look away or become vegetarians (par. 10).” In this instance, again, Pollan cites an expert who refutes his claim by stating that we no longer connect with animals, not even by looking into their eyes when they are killed, which results in Americans either to continue to consuming animals or vowing not to …show more content…
This conversation with the reader is exemplified when Pollan asks, “Even though these people [limited mental function] cannot reciprocate our moral attentions, we nevertheless include them in our circle of our moral consideration. So on what basis do we exclude the chimpanzees (par. 15)?” Here directly asks the reader to analyze and judge whether or not Americans are wrong for excluding animals like chimpanzees from “marginal cases”, when humans include other humans who have limited mental functions in our moral consideration. Pollan also questions the reader when he states, “But what happens when the choice is between “a lifetime of suffering for a nonhuman animal and the gastronomic preference of a human being?” You look away -- or you stop eating animals. And if you don’t want to do either (par. 32)?” By questioning the reader on their preferences, he is really asking the reader if they only consider their preferences over the preferences of another. This tone of a conversation, where questions are posed to the reader, allows them to form an opinion on the argument and connect to the essay. Pollan’s style is thus effective in establishing his