Rhetorical Essay - Animal Rights
Animal Rights: Right or Wrong
“The Evil of Animal ‘Rights’” by Alex Epstein and Yaron Brook addresses the issue of medical testing on animals. The authors describe the dangers of a world without medical testing, as well as the benefits that come of this testing. They discuss the violent nature of protesters, the effect this violence has on the companies and individuals involved in the field, and the ramifications the world would face were these professionals not allowed to further their work. Epstein and Brook strongly support medical testing on animals, however they fail to completely deliver their view due to alienation of their audience.
According to the authors of this piece, animal rights activists are “terrorists” (Epstein 604). The authors attack the topic of animal testing with strong language from the very beginning of the text, and do not let up through the end. Word choice throughout the piece tends to be a bit overboard. Although examples are given to illustrate the violent acts performed by certain rights protesters, the authors imply that all supporters of animal rights behave in this manner. Committing crimes in the name of a cause is morally wrong and illegal, no matter the circumstance. For an animal rights supporter to threaten lab employees or cause property damage or injury is not acceptable. Leading the audience to believe animal rights activists are brutal criminals alienates any reader who might be a supporter of this movement. Once the reader is offended, the message the authors are trying to deliver is lost.
Epstein and Brook attempt to persuade the reader into believing animal rights are bad for society. They highlight many positive influences of animal testing, and explain to the reader the global implications of discontinuing testing. The logic offered is reasonably sound in theory, though it is a bit too harshly worded at times. Although evidence of the constructive qualities of medical testing on animals is provided,
“The Evil of Animal ‘Rights’” by Alex Epstein and Yaron Brook addresses the issue of medical testing on animals. The authors describe the dangers of a world without medical testing, as well as the benefits that come of this testing. They discuss the violent nature of protesters, the effect this violence has on the companies and individuals involved in the field, and the ramifications the world would face were these professionals not allowed to further their work. Epstein and Brook strongly support medical testing on animals, however they fail to completely deliver their view due to alienation of their audience.
According to the authors of this piece, animal rights activists are “terrorists” (Epstein 604). The authors attack the topic of animal testing with strong language from the very beginning of the text, and do not let up through the end. Word choice throughout the piece tends to be a bit overboard. Although examples are given to illustrate the violent acts performed by certain rights protesters, the authors imply that all supporters of animal rights behave in this manner. Committing crimes in the name of a cause is morally wrong and illegal, no matter the circumstance. For an animal rights supporter to threaten lab employees or cause property damage or injury is not acceptable. Leading the audience to believe animal rights activists are brutal criminals alienates any reader who might be a supporter of this movement. Once the reader is offended, the message the authors are trying to deliver is lost.
Epstein and Brook attempt to persuade the reader into believing animal rights are bad for society. They highlight many positive influences of animal testing, and explain to the reader the global implications of discontinuing testing. The logic offered is reasonably sound in theory, though it is a bit too harshly worded at times. Although evidence of the constructive qualities of medical testing on animals is provided,
Cited: Epstein, Alex and Yaron Brook. "The Evil of Animal "Rights"." James, Missy and Alan P. Merickel. qtd in Reading Literature and Writing Argument. Upper Saddle River: Prentice hall, 2008. 604-605. Text. 8 September 2012. The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version. New York: New American Library, 1962. Print.