Animal, Vegetable, Miserable Rhetorical Analysis

A simple pleasure in many people’s life is a triple whopper from Burger King. Vegetarians go through their entire life without experiencing the joys of beef, bacon, chicken and various other meats. Other’s who chose the vegan life, go through the pain of consuming no milk, eggs, or any other animal product. Many vegans believe they are doing the right thing and are morally superior to people who eat meat by living a vegan lifestyle. Gary Steiner, a vegan, decided to write an article about the evils of meat eaters. In Gary Steiner’s article, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable” he addresses how humans believe they are more intellectually advanced which justifies their actions for putting animals through a miserable life and ultimately killing those animals. Many people responded to his article in “The Ethical Choices in What We Eat: Responses to Gary Steiner” most disagreed with what he has to say while others were sympathetic with Steiner. The article Steiner wrote elicited much feedback from many different vegans, vegetarians, and meat eaters, some believed his ideas completely concurred with their opinion while others completely disagreed. …show more content…
Steiner states that “even if it is raised “free range,” it still lives a life of pain and confinement that ends with a butcher’s knife” (846). Steiner is showing how caged animals and animals that are raised free range still suffer equally. Most people believe that if their meat is raised free range than it is better to eat that than an animal that is raised is a cage. Both animals will ultimately end their life the same way, through the butchers knife. Asirvatham states “suffering and injustice are inherent in life” (851). What she is suggesting is humans and animals can’t go through life without suffering. Steiner shows how free range animals still have a terrible life which helps show Asirvatham’s point of why there will always be