Let Them Eat Dog Rhetorical Analysis

Johnathan Foer in "Let Them Eat Dog" suggests that to solve hunger, individuals within society should eat the millions of dogs that are going to be euthanized in shelters. In Johnathan Swift 's argument, "A Modest Proposal", he suggests that Ireland combat the famine during that time by using the surplus of children as a food source. "Let Them Eat Dog" and "A Modest Proposal" are arguments written satirically to inform society of a historically long problem, indifference. Foer and Swift call upon society to recognize the problem, to move society to care about finding a solution, and to inform society of the inefficiency of instinctual thinking. These proposals were made because, they not only offer a solution to hunger, but do so in a quick, cost efficient manner. As decades pass, society continues to see a growing increase in world hunger and a steady decrease in resources. Though one thing remains the same throughout history, and that is societies around the world ignoring this epidemic. As long as this problem does not personally affect a person, that person will remain indifferent to …show more content…
They used the strongest appeal for most people, emotional. A person could be logical but something, somewhere is going to appeal to their emotions, and who does not love babies or dogs? Consumption of the human flesh is illegal in the United States, but consuming dog is only illegal in six. Most people feel stronger against eating their child or dog than they do about millions of children, moms, dads, etc. going hungry and eventually dying of malnutrition. Either way someone loses. This is why there needs to be a movement making food resources available to all. Why can we save one, but spare the other? "The instinct comes before our reason, and is more important" (Foer 4). We would rather save something we are expected to love rather than saving others in society that we may never give a second thought