Moral Extensionism or Racist Exploitation? The Use of Holocaust and Slavery Analogies in the Animal Liberation Movement by Claire Jean Kim and Can the treatment of Animals be compared to the Holocaust? by David Sztybel both takes an ethical turn in the articles and challenges the emotional side of the readers. Both of these sources had two things in common. The first one was the idea of what is ethical between killing a human or killing an animal. Another similarity was the emotions of the readers that was conflicted through rules and how the laws determined what was right or wrong. However, the difference that was seen between the two articles was the way exploitation of the animals were shown or interpreted through examples and scenarios.
…show more content…
We make the assumption of animal killing is fine as many of us don’t sympathize with the situation as we say simply were just “not animals”. This was also stated in the article by Kim as she says, “Human claims that they deserve respect and dignity whereas animals are to be nothing.” (2011) Both authors claims that animals are seen as products and are allowed to be mistreated because they are not humans. As we talked about in our class discussions that we take advantage of animals as they are not able to talk or we are not able to understand them. Another mindset that humans have is that clearly because we are raised knowing that it is insane and against human nature to treat humans like the way animals are treated or the way humans were treated in the holocaust. Ethically, we are born with prejudice that support humans to be treated in a different manner than the way animals are …show more content…
Also, we mentioned in class how the attention of these gruesome allegations was to gain attention from the readers and maybe allow them to see the serious problems of animal cruelty. The intersectional analysis between these articles show the suffering of both animals and humans are inhumane. Therefore, we should respect the animals and should sympathize with them as they are just like humans who deserve to live in this world. Referring to articles, I thought that Sztybel’s article was persuasive in the sense of the thirty-nine comparisons which explicitly talked about the ironic behaviour of what was happening in the Holocaust and to the animals in the farming industry. Even though, this may have not have been necessary and too graphic of a comparison. However, it does seek attention and allows myself and others to understand the seriousness of animal cruelty. Kim’s article was also persuasive in certain way as I believed it brought up important questions about the involvement of other groups other than anti-Semitism. Also, indicating that other gender groups weren’t mentioned such as the racialized LGTBQI2S group, and animal rights advocates. Therefore, there needs to be a way to change ethnics that suits people’s morality and reduces animal
We make the assumption of animal killing is fine as many of us don’t sympathize with the situation as we say simply were just “not animals”. This was also stated in the article by Kim as she says, “Human claims that they deserve respect and dignity whereas animals are to be nothing.” (2011) Both authors claims that animals are seen as products and are allowed to be mistreated because they are not humans. As we talked about in our class discussions that we take advantage of animals as they are not able to talk or we are not able to understand them. Another mindset that humans have is that clearly because we are raised knowing that it is insane and against human nature to treat humans like the way animals are treated or the way humans were treated in the holocaust. Ethically, we are born with prejudice that support humans to be treated in a different manner than the way animals are …show more content…
Also, we mentioned in class how the attention of these gruesome allegations was to gain attention from the readers and maybe allow them to see the serious problems of animal cruelty. The intersectional analysis between these articles show the suffering of both animals and humans are inhumane. Therefore, we should respect the animals and should sympathize with them as they are just like humans who deserve to live in this world. Referring to articles, I thought that Sztybel’s article was persuasive in the sense of the thirty-nine comparisons which explicitly talked about the ironic behaviour of what was happening in the Holocaust and to the animals in the farming industry. Even though, this may have not have been necessary and too graphic of a comparison. However, it does seek attention and allows myself and others to understand the seriousness of animal cruelty. Kim’s article was also persuasive in certain way as I believed it brought up important questions about the involvement of other groups other than anti-Semitism. Also, indicating that other gender groups weren’t mentioned such as the racialized LGTBQI2S group, and animal rights advocates. Therefore, there needs to be a way to change ethnics that suits people’s morality and reduces animal