Writer:- Brigid Brophy
Summary
In The Rights of Animal essay, she criticizes the exploitation and mistreatment of animals by humans. She argues that humans engage in activities such as fishing, animal experimentation, circuses, and factory farming for mere amusement, without considering the pain and suffering inflicted upon animals. Brophy questions the morality of these actions and challenges the notion that humans have absolute rights over animals. She suggests that the way we treat animals reflects a lack of morals, aesthetics, and imagination in our society.
Brophy acknowledges that her views may be considered abnormal or sentimental by some, but she argues that the rationality of a view should be evaluated rather than the number of people who hold it. She also defends vegetarianism and argues that humans have a moral obligation to spare animals from pain and killing. Brophy concludes that the treatment of animals is a genuine moral problem and calls for a reconsideration of our relationship with animals based on compassion, empathy, and respect for their rights.
Understanding
1. What practices would Brophy like to see outlawed in England? What would you like to see outlawed in Nepal?
ans: Brophy would like to see several practices outlawed in England. These practices include fishing for amusement, animal experimentation, circuses that involve the use of animals, and factory farming. She argues that these activities contribute to the exploitation and suffering of animals and calls for their prohibition.
Some practices that are commonly criticized and that people might advocate for outlawing in Nepal could include animal cruelty, illegal wildlife trade, poaching, and practices that involve the mistreatment or exploitation of animals in any form. It is essential to have specific legislation in place to protect animals and ensure their well-being.
2. What emotional reactions does she hopes to evoke from her readers?
ans: Brophy hopes to evoke a sense of empathy and compassion in her readers. She wants them to feel a deep emotional connection with animals and recognize their inherent value and right to live free from harm and exploitation.
3. Do you think some members of her audience might have reservation about the writer`s proposals?
ans: Yes, it is possible that some members of the audience may have reservations about the writer’s proposals. The essay discusses controversial topics such as outlawing certain practices involving animals, and people may hold differing viewpoints on these issues. Some individuals may have cultural, ethical, or economic reasons for disagreeing with the writer’s suggestions.
4. What is the mian idea of the article?
ans: The main idea of the above essay is to advocate for the improvement of animal welfare in society. The writer discusses various practices and industries that involve the mistreatment or exploitation of animals and argues for their abolition or significant reform. The essay emphasizes the ethical responsibility humans have towards animals and calls for a shift in attitudes and practices to ensure their well-being.
Overall, the essay aims to raise awareness, evoke empathy, and encourage readers to reconsider their relationship with animals, advocating for a more compassionate and ethical treatment of animals in society.
5. Why should human beings treat animals with more respect?
ans: Human beings should treat animals with more respect for several reasons. Firstly, animals have the capacity to experience pain, suffering, and a range of emotions, just like humans do. They are sentient beings deserving of moral consideration and compassion. By acknowledging and respecting their capacity for suffering, we can foster a more empathetic and ethical society.
Secondly, the writer highlights the interconnectedness of humans and animals within the ecosystem. Animals play important roles in maintaining the balance of nature, and their well-being is crucial for the health of the planet. Treating animals with respect means recognizing their intrinsic value and their contribution to the overall functioning of ecosystems.
Rhetoric/Language/Writing
1. How does the writer go about getting her readers to put themselves in the place of animals?
ans: The writer employs various strategies to encourage readers to put themselves in the place of animals and empathize with their experiences. One of the primary ways the writer achieves this is by vividly describing the suffering and mistreatment that animals endure. By providing detailed and compelling examples, the writer aims to evoke an emotional response in readers, helping them imagine the pain, fear, and distress that animals go through.
The writer also appeals to readers’ sense of compassion and empathy by emphasizing the similarities between humans and animals. By highlighting that animals have the capacity to feel pain, experience emotions, and form social bonds, the writer aims to bridge the perceived gap between humans and animals. This approach encourages readers to recognize the shared experiences and inherent value of animals, fostering a sense of connection and empathy.
By combining vivid descriptions, appeals to empathy, and an emphasis on consequences, the writer attempts to create a powerful narrative that prompts readers to imagine themselves in the place of animals and consider the ethical implications of their treatment.
2. Why does the writer employ a rather humorous tone in anticipating possible objections from her readers? Does she really mean to be humorous? What is the real tone of the essay?
ans: The writer employs a humorous tone when anticipating possible objections from her readers. By using humor, the writer aims to engage the readers, lighten the mood, and create a more approachable atmosphere for discussing a potentially contentious topic. The writer uses wit and sarcasm to address opposing viewpoints playfully and disarm any potential defensiveness or resistance that readers may have towards her arguments.
While the writer does use humor, it is important to note that the overall tone of the essay is not solely humorous. The essay combines various tones, including seriousness, empathy, and urgency. The writer utilizes humor strategically to add a touch of levity and make the essay more accessible. However, the primary purpose of the essay is to advocate for the ethical treatment of animals and provoke thoughtful consideration of their rights and welfare.
The real tone of the essay is a combination of passion, persuasion, and advocacy. The writer expresses a genuine concern for the well-being of animals and the moral obligations humans have towards them. The use of humor serves as a tool to engage the readers and make the essay more engaging and relatable, but it does not diminish the seriousness of the underlying message.
3. What is the writer`s chief strategy for refuting arguments in favor of hunting, raising animals for food, and using them for laboratory experiments?
ans: The writer employs several strategies to refute arguments in favor of hunting, raising animals for food, and using them for laboratory experiments. One of the chief strategies used is logical reasoning and counterarguments.
The writer presents counterarguments that challenge the justifications often used to support these practices. For hunting, the writer questions the idea of it being a necessary means of controlling animal populations by highlighting alternative methods that can be more humane and effective. They also challenge the notion that hunting contributes to conservation efforts by pointing out the negative impacts it can have on ecosystems.
Regarding raising animals for food, the writer questions the moral basis for using animals as commodities and challenges the argument that humans are at the top of the food chain, suggesting that it does not justify exploiting animals for food. The writer also highlights the environmental and health concerns associated with intensive animal agriculture.
In the case of laboratory experiments, the writer challenges the assumption that animals are necessary for scientific advancements by suggesting alternative methods such as non-animal testing. They emphasize the ethical concerns and question the validity and applicability of findings obtained from animal experiments.
4. Is the writer successful in convincing the reader of her point of view?
ans: Determining the success of the writer in convincing the reader of her point of view requires subjective judgment and can vary from reader to reader. Some readers may find the writer’s arguments persuasive and compelling, leading them to reconsider their views on the treatment of animals. Others may remain unconvinced or hold reservations about certain aspects of the writer’s arguments.
While the writer presents logical arguments, counters opposing viewpoints, and appeals to empathy, the ultimate impact on the reader’s perspective may vary. Some readers may be swayed by the writer’s reasoning and emotional appeals, while others may maintain their original stance or find flaws in the presented arguments.
Ultimately, the success of convincing the reader of her point of view depends on the individual reader’s receptiveness, critical thinking, and openness to considering alternative perspectives.
Discussion
1. How would you as a reader respond to this essay?
ans: The response to the essay will vary from reader to reader, depending on their preexisting beliefs, values, and attitudes towards animal rights and treatment. Some readers may find the essay compelling and thought-provoking, appreciating the writer’s arguments and the use of humor to engage the audience. They might agree with the call for treating animals with more respect and reconsider their own behaviors and attitudes towards animals.
On the other hand, some readers may have reservations or objections to the writer’s proposals. They may have differing views on the ethics of using animals for food, hunting, or laboratory experiments. These readers might not find the humor effective or may consider it dismissive of their concerns.
Ultimately, each reader’s response to the essay will be influenced by their individual perspectives, values, and the strength of the arguments presented. Engaging with the ideas presented in the essay, critically evaluating the evidence and reasoning, and reflecting on one’s own beliefs and values can help shape an individual’s response.
2. What is the other side of the issue? How would you argue against agreeing with the writer`s arguments? What do you think are the incorrect assumptions the writer has made?
ans: The other side of the issue can be seen as those who hold different perspectives on animal rights and treatment. One could argue against agreeing with the writer’s arguments by considering alternative viewpoints. For example, some may argue that humans have a natural right to use animals for food, as it has been a fundamental part of human history and survival. They might contend that animals raised for food can be treated ethically, ensuring proper living conditions and humane slaughter practices. Additionally, they may point out that animal testing in laboratories has led to significant medical advancements and benefits for human health.
Regarding the incorrect assumptions the writer may have made, it is important to note that animals and humans have inherently different moral worth and capacities. The writer seems to assume that animals should be given the same level of consideration as humans, disregarding the biological and cognitive differences between the two. This assumption ignores the fact that humans possess moral agency and are capable of making informed choices and decisions, whereas animals operate primarily on instinct. Furthermore, the essay overlooks the role of responsible and sustainable hunting in wildlife management, which can help maintain ecological balance and protect biodiversity.
It’s crucial to approach the topic of animal rights and treatment with an open mind, considering multiple perspectives and weighing the ethical implications from various angles. Engaging in a nuanced discussion that considers both human and animal welfare is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the issue.
3. There was a practice of killing street dogs by the kathmandu Municipality in the past. Now they have stopped doing it. Do you think the old practice was right? Why? Why not?
ans: The practice of killing street dogs by the Kathmandu Municipality in the past raises ethical and moral questions that need to be carefully considered. From an ethical standpoint, the practice of killing street dogs can be seen as problematic for several reasons. Firstly, it disregards the intrinsic value and rights of animals to live and be free from unnecessary harm. Every sentient being, including street dogs, has a right to life and should not be subjected to indiscriminate killing.
Secondly, the practice fails to address the root causes of the stray dog population issue. Rather than implementing humane and effective strategies such as sterilization programs, education on responsible pet ownership, and promoting adoption, the killing of street dogs offers only a temporary and superficial solution. It does not tackle the underlying factors contributing to the stray dog population, such as abandonment, lack of spaying/neutering, and inadequate animal welfare infrastructure.
Furthermore, the practice of killing street dogs raises questions of compassion and empathy towards animals. It is important to cultivate a society that values and respects all forms of life, promoting empathy, and finding alternative solutions that prioritize the well-being of animals. Killing street dogs not only reflects a disregard for animal welfare but also sends a negative message to the community about the value of life and the responsibility we have towards vulnerable creatures.
In light of these considerations, it can be argued that the old practice of killing street dogs by the Kathmandu Municipality was not ethically justified. It is encouraging to hear that the municipality has ceased this practice, as it provides an opportunity to shift towards more compassionate and effective approaches that focus on responsible population control, education, and community engagement to address the issue of stray dogs in a humane manner.
