Rincon 1
Kristy Rincon
Composition II 1302-480
Jennifer Bray
March 29, 2011
Rhetorical Analysis Essay-Animal Rights
Since the beginning of time, humans and animals have co-existed with one another. Humans
evolving from hunter-gatherer groups into agricultural settlements lived among animals that
played important roles in these ever changing societies. Humans turned creatures who merely coexisted among humans into companion creatures and then into agricultural commodities through
breeding, artificial selection and taming techniques. As human society industrialized the
exploitation of animals increased. Scientists began using animals in experiments to test and
develop medications and cosmetics. Animals were put into zoological parks serving the dual
purposes of academia and entertainment. Humans have used economic, philosophical and
serviceable justifications for the exploitation of animals (food, clothing, entertainment and
experimentation) but even though animal products comprise a significant percentage of the world
economy advances in science and technology have made it increasingly possible for humans to
survive without the exploitation of animals.(Issitt, Newton) Two trains of thought have emerged
on the subject of animals and their use within society, that is, that animals are living sensory
creatures with the capacity to experience pain, suffering , joy and happiness and should treated
Rincon 2
with respect and deserve to be afforded the dignity and the right of fair and humane treatment.
The other says that animals are merely serviceable creatures in a lesser position, entirely useful
commodities, and to endow them with “human” like qualities is to elevate their status in society.
Animals are useful, no more no less.
The Animal Rights Movement began in the United States in the early nineteenth century and
was finally recognized in 1822 when the Ill-Treatment of Cattle Act was passed. This act was
sponsored by Richard Martin who formed some of the first animal-protection societies and laws
(ironically he was a lifelong hunter). He also passed a bill in 1826 to prevent the cruel and
improper mistreatment of dogs. As time went on more societies sprang into being. For example,
the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) founded in 1866, was
formed to bring attention to the issue of animal rights. The founder of the ASPCA, Henry Burgh,
said their mission is “to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals
throughout the United States.” The ASPCA was the first humane organization to be granted legal
authority to investigate and make arrests for crimes against animals using a nonviolent approach.
Another animal rights group is ALF (Animal Liberation Front) which was established in Great
Britain. Unlike the ASPCA, the group ALF takes more a more physical or proactive approach
when trying to further their protestations of animal cruelty. They have illegally disrupted the
work of animal testing laboratories and committed over 1,200 criminal acts of record since 1976
and caused approximately $110 million in damages. The biggest (and most controversial) animal
organization however is PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) which was
founded in 1980. They are against animals being used for food, clothing, experiments, and
entertainment. PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal
rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement and protest campaigns. (Rich, Wagner)
Rincon 3
These divergent groups of thought calling to the attention of society the cruel and inhumane
practices inflicted on animals is seen by many as correct but the issue is not in the message of
inhumanity and cruelty but how these groups are delivering that message. These three divergent
groups of thought, those that advocate a more or calm and rational approach to dealing with
animal issues (ASPCA), those who advocate a more proactive or physical approach to
eradicating animal cruelty in all its forms (ALF) and those that disavow any and all use of
animals (PETA) all advocate and promote the idea that animals are deserving of humane and
ethical treatment, but how they differ is in their approach to their goal.
The ASPCA delivers their rhetoric visually. Their television commercials are aimed at
mainstream America. These commercials are visually riveting. They depict what is not often
deemed politically correct to see, that is, the true result of neglect and cruelty. The message is
delivered in soft focus and the delivery is benign (TV) but the message is hard driven. The
audience is shown footage of animals that have been abused and neglected. The commercials
message “Everyday in America thousands of animals suffer from cruelty and neglect” is the
mantra of the organization. The song “In the Arms of an Angel” by Sarah McLachlan plays
throughout the commercial. The song tells about someone who has been hurt and is then saved
by an angel and brought to safer place. In this case, the angel is the person who donates to the
ASPCA. The narrator is the woman who sings the song, Sarah McLachlan. She says that for a
small fee (60 cents a day) we can save an animal’s life. Also, as an incentive, the ASPCA will
give you a picture of the animal you helped save and a free t-shirt and wristband. This
commercial helps to motivate and encourages the audience using visual imagery. The footage of
the animals is so heartbreaking. We feel for the animals because even though they can’t cry, we
Rincon 4
can see all the pain they are feeling in their eyes. It makes you feel good and special knowing
that you helped an abused animal recover and start a new life. The ASPCA wants the people to
be the voice of the animals and show that they deserve to be treated with love and respect.
ALF’s methods of promoting their cause of animal rights also uses visual rhetoric, however
their visuals are graphic and disturbing images meant to shock and disturb the viewer to action.
Their methods of liberating animals include unlawful, unorthodox and extreme measures. It
gives them an image that is angry, aggressive and confrontational even though their intentions
are good. A common depiction is a man wearing a mask holding an animal they have just saved
from an animal lab, factory or fur farm, etc. Their intentions are misinterpret greatly. For some
it’s a man who saved an innocent animal’s life but for others they see a thug. The animal’s savior
doesn’t seem kind or pleasant at all even if he’s holding a cute little puppy. Also, the mask and
clothing he is wearing makes him look mysterious and shady, like someone you wouldn’t trust.
That is the point, ALF means business when it comes to saving animals and they want people to
know that they are serious in their intentions and a group to take serious. It’s a gritty image and t
gives people the idea of how violent and serious the members of ALF can be.
PETA’s rhetoric is more celebrity driven. For example, PETA is against people wearing
animal fur and they have a popular slogan that says “I’d rather be naked than wear fur.” They
have many different celebrities who pose nude for posters with this slogan. This grabs the
audience’s attention because they may see their favorite celebrity on these posters and then they
may tend to follow what their favorite celebrity is advocating. This both educates and catches the
audience’s attention when they see these types of posters or billboards. This also shows PETA’s
type of visual rhetoric. It isn’t just wearing fur either, PETA has these types of celebrity
advertisements against eating meat, caging animals and using animals for entertainment. Each
Rincon 5
poster has a celebrity on it (usually posing nude) to grab the audience’s attention. They use
celebrity and fame to make sure their opinions are seen and heard by the public.
The ASPCA, ALF, and PETA each fight for the rights of animals to be treated with respect
and kindness. The Animal Rights Movement has the right to raise social and philosophical
questions about the value of life and the consequences of human behavior. The problem they
have is that the movement’s extreme views and its members willingness to resort to violence. T
undermines the principles for which they really stand. Extreme positions, principles and methods
used to convey the ideas tend to distance more people than they convince.
Ensuring the welfare of animals is an important ethical responsibility,
but the concept of natural rights for animals is a flawed philosophy. The most extreme
implications of natural rights for animals threaten to shut down the progress of medical research
and blur the distinctions we naturally and correctly make between the way we treat
members of our own species and those of other species. (Lee, Cushman) Most supporters
of animal rights oppose all animal experimentation and believe that animals should be entitled to
the same respect for life and liberty provided to humans.(Driscoll, Finley) PETA and ALF are
the groups who despise medical research on animals and wish to put an end to it. The purpose of
animal testing is to find cures for human diseases like AIDS, cancer and Alzheimer's disease.
Each year, approximately 25 million animals are used for research, experimentation, and
education according to the United States Humane Society. (Rich, Wagner) Jerry Vlasak, a
member of ALF quoted in 2004 as saying that it would be worth killing ten or fifteen medical
researchers in order to save the lives of millions of animals. The American College of Surgeons
state that the use of animals in research and education cannot be completely replaced
in the foreseeable future. Vital, lifesaving cancer and HIV studies, for instance, depend
Rincon 6
on the use of live animals in order to prove the safety and efficacy of new medications. (Lee,
Cushman) These people who believe that it is not only ethical but life-saving do not hate
animals; their feeling is that we should put humans first before we think of the animal’s welfare.
A cartoon of a group of guinea pigs protesting and holding picket signs saying “humans
have rights”, “we want our jobs back”, “stop, this is cruelty to scientists” and “save our farm”.
This cartoon shows the other side of the coin when it comes to the positions of ALF and PETA.
Animal testing may not seem humane but is necessary in order to find cures that can save lives.
Most people who support animal rights are not necessarily professional philosophers or animal
rights activists, many in the general public seem to have imbibed a watered down version of the
antihuman animus promoted by radical environmentalism. (pg. 101, Machan) People have good
intentions but are misinformed.
Each of these groups has very individually powerful rhetoric but the one that made the most
impact is the ASPCA’s commercial. No one can watch this commercial without shedding a tear.
The footage of the injured animals is just so powerful it touches a soft spot in people’s hearts.
Animals unable to fend for themselves, makes us sad and angry. We can’t comprehend what the
attacker was thinking when he/she injured or neglected it. It makes us want to help the animal
and give a new fresh start in life. As for PETA, many people understand and somewhat agree
with PETA’s stand yet find they are too radical and extreme in their views. They respect the fact
that they want to help animals but they take it too far. No celebrity can totally convince the
public that PETA’s views on animal rights are mainstream and correct. Alf’s methods are just
too hostile and radical for most of the general public.
Rincon 7
The issue of animal right’s is a complicated and complex issue. Each group employs a method of
persuasion that best fits their members’ philosophy on the issue. Each group draws an audience
to their position by their persuasive and passionate rhetoric; their rhetoric ultimately will make or
break the case for each of these individual groups.
Rincon 8
Aronson, Jamie. "Point: The Fight for Animal Rights." Points of View Reference Center. 2009.
Web. 20 Feb. 2011.
Driscoll, Sally, and Laura Finley. "Animal Experimentation: An Overview." Points of View:
Animal Experimentation (2009): 1. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 11 Mar.
2011.
Issitt, Micah, and Heather Newton. "Point: Animals Deserve the Same Rights as
Humans." Points of View: Animal Rights (2009): 2. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO.
Web. 11 Mar. 2011.
Lee, M., and C. Ames Cushman. "Counterpoint: Animals Do Not Have Rights." Points of
View: Animal Rights (2009): 3. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 11 Mar.
2011.
Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California, 1983.Print
Rich, Alex K., and Geraldine Wagner. "Animal Rights: An Overview." Points of View: Animal
Rights (2009): 1. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 11 Mar. 2011.
Wright, George, and Steve Hoagland. "Counterpoint: Animal Testing Is Cruel and Immoral
Regardless of the Benefits Associated With It." Points of View: Animal Experimentation (2009):
3. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 11 Mar. 2011.