"Against Meat" by Jonathan Safran Foer is about the ethical reasons not to buy or eat meat. Jonathan begins by introducing his son who he then declares to be vegetarian. He goes on to explain how morally incorrect factory farming is, ending with an anecdote about his grandmother. I know that I will be ruthlessly beaten down for saying this but I truly believe that the progression of human society should be held at a greater cost than any amount of animal lives or pain. If it takes the destruction of all animals to save human society, then I would not hesitate to press the red button that does so. Why? Because I'm human. People ask "What if you were that animal." My answer? "I'm not an animal but if I was, I would prize the survival of my own species over any human life or pain as well." The world is a game of survival and if we as humans are able to exploit others for our own benefit, there is no one to stop us but ourselves. So why are we stopping ourselves? The human characteristic called empathy is the ability to feel someone else's pain. The original reason this characteristic evolved (ironically) was for humans to care for each other and be able to survive in this not-yet-civilized world. However, this emotion constantly gets in the way of progress. The center moral of our society should not be kindness, it should be logical progress. Usually, being nice to others will lead to progress as you are boosting their moral or saving them from some depression they may have. However, in this situation, being nice to animals will simply take up more energy from our society that we could be using to solve more humane issues like poverty. If and when we get to the stage in which humanity is perfectly stable and safe, it's okay to start considering the lives of the animals we live off of. We should really prioritize ourselves over some measly little chicken or cow. Of course, the part about the environment being damaged was completely true. We should find a more efficient method of farming without destroying our Earth. In the long run, preserving our home is top priority but if we need to torture a few animals in the process, I'm all for that. My radical opinions aside, I think that this was a good piece of writing. Jonathan really pushed the pathos with the sad animal descriptions (which this topic has a lot of). He also uses ethos by making himself look like a great father (which he is, I'm not against that) by saying he's raising his kids to be healthier. The logical arguments are all very solid (except for the "morals and ethics" part) which further buttresses his argument. The anecdotes thrown in throughout the piece keep it interesting to read while adding to his reasoning and evidence. So although I do not completely agree with his argument, I think his article was well written and decently hard to dispute.
"Against Meat" by Jonathan Safran Foer aims to show a blunt side of pro-vegetarianism, meat is merely a want and the costs of eating meat simply outweigh the pleasure of eating it. Foer begins by relating to many of the readers, he had grown up eating lots of meat that he quite enjoyed. However, he soon twists this around because of his children and points out that people's taste has been exempt from rules that are followed by our other senses. The entire essay is surprisingly relatable and drives home a point of holding our taste to the same expectations we hold our other senses to. I believe that Foer's essay is made especially strong by its recognition of the other side. He begins and ends on the side that supports meat consumption which only strengthens his argument of how important it is to be aware of what we are eating. In the middle of the essay his use of sharp, blunt, and often aggressive but honest words force the reader to confront the issue he brings up: what is the limit of our own wants? With these composition choices I believe that Foer has built a strong argument for at least reconsidering our diet and the consequences that befall others because of it. Still I am quite bias towards his side. For a long time I loved eating meat, but after reading many articles and watching documentaries on the meat industry and mass agribusinesses as a whole for school assignments, each time I look at a plate of beef I can't help but feel sick. When I cut beef out of my diet about three months ago, some of the people close to me went in a spin. They couldn't believe that I had turned into one of "those people" who thought their own diets would actually change something. As of now I don't know if I'll change anything, I hope to but even I realise the impossibility in that. Instead I'm doing what makes my conscience clearer, something that I am reminded of when reading this essay. Though when I first read this essay a different thought came to mind: what is the limit to becoming a vegetarian? Both sides of the argument of diet can go to very far extremes, only further complicating what is in essence, "the omnivore's dilemma".
The story Against Meat by Jonathan Foer is a story about how he and his family decided to go vegetarian and why. When he first starts he talks about how it is to lose some tastes, but says it will be worth it. He also says that all of the labels on the factory farm foods have words like free range, cage free, natural, and organic but they really don't mean anything. Another one of his reasons why he became vegetarian was because factory farming has made animal agriculture one of the top contributors to global warming, and also one of the top contributors in environmental problems. This means that eating factory farm food from supermarkets or restaurants is basically just hurting the environment. Finally he says that factory farm practices are major problems. I do agree that we need to do something about factory farms hurting the environment, I also agree with that some factory farm practises need to be changed. At the same time I think some practises are fine. I do not think this story will make me a vegetarian. I don't think any story will change my opinion on eating meat.
“Against Meat”, written by Jonathon Safran Foer is a narrative article about the moral reason against eating meat. He begins this essay by describing the birth of his son and his subsequent decision to raise his children as vegetarians. As evidence (logos), Foer explains that in this day and age, he does not trust the unethical treatment of animals at “factory farms” that make up such a large part of the meat industry. Next, he discuss the environmental impact that these mass production facilities have resulted in. Finally, he concludes the piece with a bit of pathos as he retells a moment with his grandmother and the bigger implications it had. Throughout the whole piece, he does a good job of connecting the reader to his own situation through his various personal stories connecting food to family (pathos). Personally, I have done a variety of research on the topic of ethics and I have been deciding whether or not to become vegetarian. The ethical dilemmas of the meat industry have been concerning me for quite some time, but the temptation of meat is ever-present. One argument he made within his article regarding the “crudeness of our senses” particularly stood out to me. His comparison between a “horny person raping an animal as a hungry one does to confining, killing and eating it” quite intriguing, because it says a lot about how humans disregard ethics in one situation to better fit their comfort in another. However, this argument may not be entirely valid because a there is a very large difference between the necessity of food that humans require (hunger, staying alive) and simple pleasure (horny). Humans hunted and killed animals in the past because it was a necessity to feed their family. Now, not so much. As Foer pointed out, “a vegetarian diet can be rich and fully enjoyable”, much like that of non-vegetarians. Unfortunately, the way of the way his reasoning is explained seems almost a bit too radical. I do believe that Foer still presents a valid argument overall and his writing was quite captivating with all the personal stories, however, I am left wishing that he had not included the afore mentioned portion.
The story, "Against Meat," is a story about a man who converts into a vegetarian. Foer talks about how his son started to be a vegetarian, which helped convert himself also. He then talks about how factory farming is horrible and unethical to the human mind. Foer talks about how he truly enjoyed eating meat as a young kid, but then points out about how our taste is exempt from things that are proceeded by our own senses. I truly believe that Foer is trying to almost convince people to become vegetarian because of things like factory farming and being unethical. I can see what Foer is trying to say, but I truly believe it would hurt our society more than it helps. I agree that factory farming is unethical and cruel, however, we must do what's best for our human race. We should do what's best for humans and then prioritize animals and our ethical beliefs. I also agree on how Foer is trying to stop factory farming because it could contribute to global warming. This is a very important point that needs to be made. Foer prioritizes to stop one of the bigger issues in our society, global warming, rather than the ethics of eating and killing an animal. I cannot necessarily relate to this topic as I've never been a vegetarian before, but if the main cause of being vegetarian is to help the human race's society, I'm all for it. However, if it's about the ethics of an animal, I wouldn't expect a change.
The essay "Against Meat" by John Safran Foer is about why people shouldn't consume meat. Foer explain's how and why his family decided to be vegetarians. His kids and keeping them healthy inspired him to propose the idea of the family giving up meat. At first, it was hard to think that he would not be able to eat some of his favorite foods. "a loss that extends beyond giving up a pleasurable eating experience."(107) as Foer described. But he knew that he was changing for the better. Foer also describes how killing these animals is terrible for the environment. He talks about how this is one of the most severe environmental problems with lots of effects, like pollution or deforestation. Foer mentions that the reason that we are killing animals is not that we are animal testing, but we are hungry. He says that we want to eat the animals for our own pleasure. I think that Foer's argument was very effective because he used strong and compelling comparisons of what killing the animals would be like. Also, he talked about how it would be painstaking to stop eating your favorite foods and it really justifies the other side of the equation. Personally, by reading this article, I will think about what this is doing to the environment and the animals themselves. But right now, I eat meat on a daily basis and it is part of my normal meals. I don't think I could ever become vegetarian and give up meat. Moving forward though, I can keep in mind the fact that we as humans aren't experimenting on them, but we are greedy for ourselves. Overall, I think that this essay was well written and a justification for why humans should stop eating meat.
In “Against Meat,” Jonathan Safran Foer argues against the consumption of meat, and draws on his experiences of family and factual knowledge to justify this belief. The author’s objective evidence for the immorality of carnivorism consists in what he views as the cruelty of factory-farming and industrialized animal-killing, and the significant negative ecological effects of meat consumption. Moreover, Foer adds that meat-eating, in today’s society, is neither necessary nor healthy. He also asserts that it is an act of hypocrisy for parents to teach their children that it is acceptable to eat meat while insisting on moral responsibility. In addition to his argumentation against vegetarianism, the essay is interspersed with Foer’s memories and musings from his experiences as a grandson, son, and now a father. The author begins his description of the intimate connection between food and family by recalling some of his happiest childhood memories: Foer remembers getting sushi with his mother, eating his dad’s turkey burgers in his backyard, and eating his grandmother’s chicken with carrots. He notes that these memories carry important symbolic connotations about the warmth and pleasure of life with family. However, Foer then says he believes culture must engage in a collective forgetting of these tastes, and reconstruct the collective memory such that more ethical, vegetarian foods can invoke the same emotional response that the aforementioned traditional meat foods do. Foer supports this belief by first noting that virtually all meat is produced in factory farms that ignore animal welfare. Ethical alternatives to factory farms do exist, the author concedes, but they are impracticably hard to find. Foer then cites reports demonstrating that factory farming is the chief contributor to global warming, and a primary contributor to direct ecological damage. He also asserts that extreme genetic modification is unethical. The author then addresses his antagonists who justify carnivorism due to its pleasure: if the raping of animals for sexual pleasure runs counter to social norms, why is it acceptable to kill animals for gustatory pleasure? Foer ends his essay by returning to his thoughts about the relationship between food and family. The author concludes that it is not the food itself that leads to happy nostalgia, but the wisdom and kindness children remember in their parents that they feel in connection with homemade meals. For his ethical objections, and his belief that culture can be changed to promote ethical eating yet retain the same social functions, Foer states that he has decided to raise his young children as vegetarians. In this way, the author embarks on the cultural project he envisions. Foer’s synthesis of objective facts and logic with thoughts and memories about parenting creates and interesting formula. Not only is the reader persuaded to agree with the author’s thesis, but he also becomes able to empathize with and understand how the narrative of his life led him to the rejection of meat. His willingness to confront the inconsistencies in society’s ethical system is admirable; Foer even mentions that he misses the pleasure that meat provides. Although “Against Meat” may not make a new legion of kale-wielding vegetarians determined to confront culture’s erroneous dogmas (some readers will question how Foer equivocates rape with killing, and question his implicit assumption that animals can meaningfully experience negative mental states caused by factory-farming), readers will afterwards be able to view vegetarianism not as a subversive doctrine, but as a wholesome and empathetic attitude about respecting the other animals that occupy the Earth.
"Against Meat" by Jonathan Safran Foer is about his views on not eating meat. He states that eating meat can cause significant harm to the environment, which explains why he raised his kids vegetarian. He gives many points on why he became a vegetarian. He states that animal agriculture is the number one contributor to global warming, and it is the single worst thing that humans do to the environment. This is not only harmful towards the environment, but also farm animals. He states, "Every factory-farmed animal is, as a practice, treated in ways that would be illegal if it were a dog or a cat." I agree on his views towards meat, saving the environment on a small scale. Thinking about if the majority of the human race were to go vegetarian, our world will deteriorate a lot slower, since global warming is irreversible damage. If we were to cut down on the most harmful contributor to the environment, the world will last a lot longer than if we continued our lifestyle as is. I believe that his intentions are good, and after all, why should cats and dogs be treated differently than farm animals? In a sense, the demand for meat has greatly altered the original state of nature, as said, "Turkeys have been so genetically modified they are incapable of natural reproduction." The direction of where this is heading is unsure, as we keep adjusting what was given. This piece is very informational, while bringing up facts that makes the audience feel the need to support the cause. The information given is difficult to dispute since it is true that animal agriculture causes environmental issues such as pollution, deforestation, and loss of biodiversity. He makes a strong point in how meat is not an essential part of one's diet and he suggests that "a vegetarian diet can be rich and fully enjoyable". This piece ties together nicely, and I believe that every point he incorporated in the short essay had a nice effect to the purpose.
"Against Meat" by Jonathan Foer is about his and his wife's decision to raise their kids as vegetarians, even though he himself had grown up eating meat. I really, really, really, love this essay. Foer seems to incorporate nearly every aspect of a good persuasive essay while managing to not really persuade. He shared his (extremely valid and harrowing) point while not pushing it on the reader. He states the facts of factory farming, how genetically modified the animals are, to the point that some turkeys cannot even reproduce naturally, and how horrible factory farming is for the environment. He stresses how "cage-free" and "organic" and "free-range" can mean absolutely nothing in many situations. The majority of meat today is from factory farms. He mentions that he still loves the thought of a good steak, a nice piece of chicken, calamari. He talks about the cons of raising his children as vegetarians, like how they won't be able to taste their great-grandmother's signature dish, or grow up the Foer with food being a big part of his culture.
He often mentions throughout his essay that meat is not necessary in one's diet and that a vegetarian life can be fulfilling and enjoyable, and does a good job of going full circle with the essay and making strong and powerful points.
While I could never be a vegetarian due to a meat-loving family, he is very convincing and strong in his arguments with using a fluid mix of pathos and logos while keeping the essay brief and interesting.
The story Against Meat by Jonathan Safran Foer is about vegetarianism and why it is better than eating meat. He starts the story off by talking about the decision he made to raise his children as vegetarians, and how important it is as a parent to make sure your children are healthy physically and mentally. He gives reasons for raising his children as vegetarians, and many of them are based on facts from the U.S.D.A. He also lists facts taken from reports by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. Later, he brings up a point that should be taken into consideration when deciding if you should try to enforce vegetarianism on your children. Your children will eventually question you as to why they aren't allowed to eat meat, and you, as parents, will most likely not have satisfactory answers. I believe the point the author is trying to convey is that they believe vegetarianism is the best way to live, but children ultimately have the final say in what they eat when they grow up. I believe logos was used to convince you that being a vegetarian is the key to a long, healthy, and moral life. This was done by listing facts about factory farmed animals being immoral and significantly harmful towards the environment. He also brings up the fact that you can't eat meat without considerable suffering on the other end (for the animals.) I enjoyed this piece, as it was very informative and somewhat straight to the point. Unfortunately, this essay was very one-sided as it talks about the benefits of vegetarianism, while only talking about the issues of eating meat.
In Jonathan Foer’s "Against Meat," he opens the passage by recalling one of his happiest memories being the experiences of eating meat. Foer grew with eating meat such as sushi with his mom, turkey burgers with his dad, and his grandmother's chicken - all creating cherished memories. He admits that his diet was like a culture to him and something of importance. But in putting away his feelings he states, "But perhaps this kind of forgetfulness is worth accepting... I need to lost certain tastes and find other handles for the memories that they once helped me carry."
Foer goes on to justify his vegetarian diet and question meat-eating with the realities of facts, citing sources saying, "According to an analysis of U.S.D.A. data by the advocacy group Farm Forward, factory farms now produce more than 99 percent of the animals eaten in this country." Foer also goes on to show that factory farming is one of the main culprits of hurting the environment, saying, "According to reports by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. and others, factory farming has made animal agriculture the No. 1 contributor to global warming (it is significantly more destructive than transportation alone), and one of the Top 2 or 3 causes of all of the most serious environmental problems, both global and local: air and water pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity." His article then segues to a plethora of arguments, such as the inhumane treatment of animals and healthier food alternatives.
The piece is well done in terms of research, facts, and in affecting the reader's emotions, which reinforces his position well. I find it very persuasive and I give props to Foer for grabbing my emotions with its strong pathos, ethos, and logos; however, I doubt I will convert to being a vegetarian. -Jonah Bahr
"Against Meat" by Jonathan Safran Foer is about the ethical reasons not to buy or eat meat. Jonathan begins by introducing his son who he then declares to be vegetarian. He goes on to explain how morally incorrect factory farming is, ending with an anecdote about his grandmother.
ReplyDeleteI know that I will be ruthlessly beaten down for saying this but I truly believe that the progression of human society should be held at a greater cost than any amount of animal lives or pain. If it takes the destruction of all animals to save human society, then I would not hesitate to press the red button that does so. Why? Because I'm human. People ask "What if you were that animal." My answer? "I'm not an animal but if I was, I would prize the survival of my own species over any human life or pain as well." The world is a game of survival and if we as humans are able to exploit others for our own benefit, there is no one to stop us but ourselves. So why are we stopping ourselves? The human characteristic called empathy is the ability to feel someone else's pain. The original reason this characteristic evolved (ironically) was for humans to care for each other and be able to survive in this not-yet-civilized world. However, this emotion constantly gets in the way of progress. The center moral of our society should not be kindness, it should be logical progress. Usually, being nice to others will lead to progress as you are boosting their moral or saving them from some depression they may have. However, in this situation, being nice to animals will simply take up more energy from our society that we could be using to solve more humane issues like poverty. If and when we get to the stage in which humanity is perfectly stable and safe, it's okay to start considering the lives of the animals we live off of. We should really prioritize ourselves over some measly little chicken or cow. Of course, the part about the environment being damaged was completely true. We should find a more efficient method of farming without destroying our Earth. In the long run, preserving our home is top priority but if we need to torture a few animals in the process, I'm all for that.
My radical opinions aside, I think that this was a good piece of writing. Jonathan really pushed the pathos with the sad animal descriptions (which this topic has a lot of). He also uses ethos by making himself look like a great father (which he is, I'm not against that) by saying he's raising his kids to be healthier. The logical arguments are all very solid (except for the "morals and ethics" part) which further buttresses his argument. The anecdotes thrown in throughout the piece keep it interesting to read while adding to his reasoning and evidence. So although I do not completely agree with his argument, I think his article was well written and decently hard to dispute.
"Against Meat" by Jonathan Safran Foer aims to show a blunt side of pro-vegetarianism, meat is merely a want and the costs of eating meat simply outweigh the pleasure of eating it. Foer begins by relating to many of the readers, he had grown up eating lots of meat that he quite enjoyed. However, he soon twists this around because of his children and points out that people's taste has been exempt from rules that are followed by our other senses. The entire essay is surprisingly relatable and drives home a point of holding our taste to the same expectations we hold our other senses to.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Foer's essay is made especially strong by its recognition of the other side. He begins and ends on the side that supports meat consumption which only strengthens his argument of how important it is to be aware of what we are eating. In the middle of the essay his use of sharp, blunt, and often aggressive but honest words force the reader to confront the issue he brings up: what is the limit of our own wants? With these composition choices I believe that Foer has built a strong argument for at least reconsidering our diet and the consequences that befall others because of it.
Still I am quite bias towards his side. For a long time I loved eating meat, but after reading many articles and watching documentaries on the meat industry and mass agribusinesses as a whole for school assignments, each time I look at a plate of beef I can't help but feel sick. When I cut beef out of my diet about three months ago, some of the people close to me went in a spin. They couldn't believe that I had turned into one of "those people" who thought their own diets would actually change something. As of now I don't know if I'll change anything, I hope to but even I realise the impossibility in that. Instead I'm doing what makes my conscience clearer, something that I am reminded of when reading this essay. Though when I first read this essay a different thought came to mind: what is the limit to becoming a vegetarian? Both sides of the argument of diet can go to very far extremes, only further complicating what is in essence, "the omnivore's dilemma".
Claire Liu
The story Against Meat by Jonathan Foer is a story about how he and his family decided to go vegetarian and why. When he first starts he talks about how it is to lose some tastes, but says it will be worth it. He also says that all of the labels on the factory farm foods have words like free range, cage free, natural, and organic but they really don't mean anything. Another one of his reasons why he became vegetarian was because factory farming has made animal agriculture one of the top contributors to global warming, and also one of the top contributors in environmental problems. This means that eating factory farm food from supermarkets or restaurants is basically just hurting the environment. Finally he says that factory farm practices are major problems.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that we need to do something about factory farms hurting the environment, I also agree with that some factory farm practises need to be changed. At the same time I think some practises are fine.
I do not think this story will make me a vegetarian. I don't think any story will change my opinion on eating meat.
“Against Meat”, written by Jonathon Safran Foer is a narrative article about the moral reason against eating meat. He begins this essay by describing the birth of his son and his subsequent decision to raise his children as vegetarians. As evidence (logos), Foer explains that in this day and age, he does not trust the unethical treatment of animals at “factory farms” that make up such a large part of the meat industry. Next, he discuss the environmental impact that these mass production facilities have resulted in. Finally, he concludes the piece with a bit of pathos as he retells a moment with his grandmother and the bigger implications it had. Throughout the whole piece, he does a good job of connecting the reader to his own situation through his various personal stories connecting food to family (pathos).
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have done a variety of research on the topic of ethics and I have been deciding whether or not to become vegetarian. The ethical dilemmas of the meat industry have been concerning me for quite some time, but the temptation of meat is ever-present. One argument he made within his article regarding the “crudeness of our senses” particularly stood out to me. His comparison between a “horny person raping an animal as a hungry one does to confining, killing and eating it” quite intriguing, because it says a lot about how humans disregard ethics in one situation to better fit their comfort in another. However, this argument may not be entirely valid because a there is a very large difference between the necessity of food that humans require (hunger, staying alive) and simple pleasure (horny). Humans hunted and killed animals in the past because it was a necessity to feed their family. Now, not so much. As Foer pointed out, “a vegetarian diet can be rich and fully enjoyable”, much like that of non-vegetarians. Unfortunately, the way of the way his reasoning is explained seems almost a bit too radical. I do believe that Foer still presents a valid argument overall and his writing was quite captivating with all the personal stories, however, I am left wishing that he had not included the afore mentioned portion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe story, "Against Meat," is a story about a man who converts into a vegetarian. Foer talks about how his son started to be a vegetarian, which helped convert himself also. He then talks about how factory farming is horrible and unethical to the human mind. Foer talks about how he truly enjoyed eating meat as a young kid, but then points out about how our taste is exempt from things that are proceeded by our own senses. I truly believe that Foer is trying to almost convince people to become vegetarian because of things like factory farming and being unethical. I can see what Foer is trying to say, but I truly believe it would hurt our society more than it helps. I agree that factory farming is unethical and cruel, however, we must do what's best for our human race. We should do what's best for humans and then prioritize animals and our ethical beliefs. I also agree on how Foer is trying to stop factory farming because it could contribute to global warming. This is a very important point that needs to be made. Foer prioritizes to stop one of the bigger issues in our society, global warming, rather than the ethics of eating and killing an animal. I cannot necessarily relate to this topic as I've never been a vegetarian before, but if the main cause of being vegetarian is to help the human race's society, I'm all for it. However, if it's about the ethics of an animal, I wouldn't expect a change.
ReplyDeleteConnor lee
DeleteThe essay "Against Meat" by John Safran Foer is about why people shouldn't consume meat. Foer explain's how and why his family decided to be vegetarians. His kids and keeping them healthy inspired him to propose the idea of the family giving up meat. At first, it was hard to think that he would not be able to eat some of his favorite foods. "a loss that extends beyond giving up a pleasurable eating experience."(107) as Foer described. But he knew that he was changing for the better. Foer also describes how killing these animals is terrible for the environment. He talks about how this is one of the most severe environmental problems with lots of effects, like pollution or deforestation. Foer mentions that the reason that we are killing animals is not that we are animal testing, but we are hungry. He says that we want to eat the animals for our own pleasure.
ReplyDeleteI think that Foer's argument was very effective because he used strong and compelling comparisons of what killing the animals would be like. Also, he talked about how it would be painstaking to stop eating your favorite foods and it really justifies the other side of the equation.
Personally, by reading this article, I will think about what this is doing to the environment and the animals themselves. But right now, I eat meat on a daily basis and it is part of my normal meals. I don't think I could ever become vegetarian and give up meat. Moving forward though, I can keep in mind the fact that we as humans aren't experimenting on them, but we are greedy for ourselves. Overall, I think that this essay was well written and a justification for why humans should stop eating meat.
(Ryan Clark)
ReplyDeleteIn “Against Meat,” Jonathan Safran Foer argues against the consumption of meat, and draws on his experiences of family and factual knowledge to justify this belief. The author’s objective evidence for the immorality of carnivorism consists in what he views as the cruelty of factory-farming and industrialized animal-killing, and the significant negative ecological effects of meat consumption. Moreover, Foer adds that meat-eating, in today’s society, is neither necessary nor healthy. He also asserts that it is an act of hypocrisy for parents to teach their children that it is acceptable to eat meat while insisting on moral responsibility. In addition to his argumentation against vegetarianism, the essay is interspersed with Foer’s memories and musings from his experiences as a grandson, son, and now a father.
The author begins his description of the intimate connection between food and family by recalling some of his happiest childhood memories: Foer remembers getting sushi with his mother, eating his dad’s turkey burgers in his backyard, and eating his grandmother’s chicken with carrots. He notes that these memories carry important symbolic connotations about the warmth and pleasure of life with family. However, Foer then says he believes culture must engage in a collective forgetting of these tastes, and reconstruct the collective memory such that more ethical, vegetarian foods can invoke the same emotional response that the aforementioned traditional meat foods do.
Foer supports this belief by first noting that virtually all meat is produced in factory farms that ignore animal welfare. Ethical alternatives to factory farms do exist, the author concedes, but they are impracticably hard to find. Foer then cites reports demonstrating that factory farming is the chief contributor to global warming, and a primary contributor to direct ecological damage. He also asserts that extreme genetic modification is unethical. The author then addresses his antagonists who justify carnivorism due to its pleasure: if the raping of animals for sexual pleasure runs counter to social norms, why is it acceptable to kill animals for gustatory pleasure?
Foer ends his essay by returning to his thoughts about the relationship between food and family. The author concludes that it is not the food itself that leads to happy nostalgia, but the wisdom and kindness children remember in their parents that they feel in connection with homemade meals. For his ethical objections, and his belief that culture can be changed to promote ethical eating yet retain the same social functions, Foer states that he has decided to raise his young children as vegetarians. In this way, the author embarks on the cultural project he envisions.
Foer’s synthesis of objective facts and logic with thoughts and memories about parenting creates and interesting formula. Not only is the reader persuaded to agree with the author’s thesis, but he also becomes able to empathize with and understand how the narrative of his life led him to the rejection of meat. His willingness to confront the inconsistencies in society’s ethical system is admirable; Foer even mentions that he misses the pleasure that meat provides. Although “Against Meat” may not make a new legion of kale-wielding vegetarians determined to confront culture’s erroneous dogmas (some readers will question how Foer equivocates rape with killing, and question his implicit assumption that animals can meaningfully experience negative mental states caused by factory-farming), readers will afterwards be able to view vegetarianism not as a subversive doctrine, but as a wholesome and empathetic attitude about respecting the other animals that occupy the Earth.
"Against Meat" by Jonathan Safran Foer is about his views on not eating meat. He states that eating meat can cause significant harm to the environment, which explains why he raised his kids vegetarian.
ReplyDeleteHe gives many points on why he became a vegetarian. He states that animal agriculture is the number one contributor to global warming, and it is the single worst thing that humans do to the environment. This is not only harmful towards the environment, but also farm animals. He states, "Every factory-farmed animal is, as a practice, treated in ways that would be illegal if it were a dog or a cat." I agree on his views towards meat, saving the environment on a small scale. Thinking about if the majority of the human race were to go vegetarian, our world will deteriorate a lot slower, since global warming is irreversible damage. If we were to cut down on the most harmful contributor to the environment, the world will last a lot longer than if we continued our lifestyle as is. I believe that his intentions are good, and after all, why should cats and dogs be treated differently than farm animals?
In a sense, the demand for meat has greatly altered the original state of nature, as said, "Turkeys have been so genetically modified they are incapable of natural reproduction." The direction of where this is heading is unsure, as we keep adjusting what was given.
This piece is very informational, while bringing up facts that makes the audience feel the need to support the cause. The information given is difficult to dispute since it is true that animal agriculture causes environmental issues such as pollution, deforestation, and loss of biodiversity. He makes a strong point in how meat is not an essential part of one's diet and he suggests that "a vegetarian diet can be rich and fully enjoyable". This piece ties together nicely, and I believe that every point he incorporated in the short essay had a nice effect to the purpose.
"Against Meat" by Jonathan Foer is about his and his wife's decision to raise their kids as vegetarians, even though he himself had grown up eating meat. I really, really, really, love this essay. Foer seems to incorporate nearly every aspect of a good persuasive essay while managing to not really persuade. He shared his (extremely valid and harrowing) point while not pushing it on the reader. He states the facts of factory farming, how genetically modified the animals are, to the point that some turkeys cannot even reproduce naturally, and how horrible factory farming is for the environment. He stresses how "cage-free" and "organic" and "free-range" can mean absolutely nothing in many situations. The majority of meat today is from factory farms. He mentions that he still loves the thought of a good steak, a nice piece of chicken, calamari. He talks about the cons of raising his children as vegetarians, like how they won't be able to taste their great-grandmother's signature dish, or grow up the Foer with food being a big part of his culture.
ReplyDeleteHe often mentions throughout his essay that meat is not necessary in one's diet and that a vegetarian life can be fulfilling and enjoyable, and does a good job of going full circle with the essay and making strong and powerful points.
While I could never be a vegetarian due to a meat-loving family, he is very convincing and strong in his arguments with using a fluid mix of pathos and logos while keeping the essay brief and interesting.
The story Against Meat by Jonathan Safran Foer is about vegetarianism and why it is better than eating meat. He starts the story off by talking about the decision he made to raise his children as vegetarians, and how important it is as a parent to make sure your children are healthy physically and mentally. He gives reasons for raising his children as vegetarians, and many of them are based on facts from the U.S.D.A. He also lists facts taken from reports by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. Later, he brings up a point that should be taken into consideration when deciding if you should try to enforce vegetarianism on your children. Your children will eventually question you as to why they aren't allowed to eat meat, and you, as parents, will most likely not have satisfactory answers. I believe the point the author is trying to convey is that they believe vegetarianism is the best way to live, but children ultimately have the final say in what they eat when they grow up. I believe logos was used to convince you that being a vegetarian is the key to a long, healthy, and moral life. This was done by listing facts about factory farmed animals being immoral and significantly harmful towards the environment. He also brings up the fact that you can't eat meat without considerable suffering on the other end (for the animals.) I enjoyed this piece, as it was very informative and somewhat straight to the point. Unfortunately, this essay was very one-sided as it talks about the benefits of vegetarianism, while only talking about the issues of eating meat.
ReplyDelete-ashton
DeleteIn Jonathan Foer’s "Against Meat," he opens the passage by recalling one of his happiest memories being the experiences of eating meat. Foer grew with eating meat such as sushi with his mom, turkey burgers with his dad, and his grandmother's chicken - all creating cherished memories. He admits that his diet was like a culture to him and something of importance. But in putting away his feelings he states, "But perhaps this kind of forgetfulness is worth accepting... I need to lost certain tastes and find other handles for the memories that they once helped me carry."
ReplyDeleteFoer goes on to justify his vegetarian diet and question meat-eating with the realities of facts, citing sources saying, "According to an analysis of U.S.D.A. data by the advocacy group Farm Forward, factory farms now produce more than 99 percent of the animals eaten in this country." Foer also goes on to show that factory farming is one of the main culprits of hurting the environment, saying, "According to reports by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. and others, factory farming has made animal agriculture the No. 1 contributor to global warming (it is significantly more destructive than transportation alone), and one of the Top 2 or 3 causes of all of the most serious environmental problems, both global and local: air and water pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity." His article then segues to a plethora of arguments, such as the inhumane treatment of animals and healthier food alternatives.
The piece is well done in terms of research, facts, and in affecting the reader's emotions, which reinforces his position well. I find it very persuasive and I give props to Foer for grabbing my emotions with its strong pathos, ethos, and logos; however, I doubt I will convert to being a vegetarian.
-Jonah Bahr