Did you commit a crime today? According to the logic of Stijn Bruers in his article, The Core Argument for Veganism, if you ate meat today, you did indeed commit a crime, because animals have rights just like humans. He is passionate about the ethical side of veganism, and his article is an attempt to argue his claim that adopting a vegan lifestyle is a moral duty. Whether you agree or disagree, one is forced to confront their assumptions about what the rights of animals and the ethics of lifestyle choices by Bruers’ persuasive argument which utilizes both pathos and ethos proofs. His beliefs on vegan moral duty is contrary to the warrant which is that using animals for food and clothing is normal and unproblematic, this creates possible rebuttals
…show more content…
First, he articulates this by using pathos value proofs, encouraging the audience to value animals integrity. For example he says, “all sentient beings, especially vertebrates with functional nervous systems, have the basic right to not be used merely as a bodily means (ie, against the will) for our non-vital ends, in particular for food and clothing.” Bruers’ goal in this passage seems to be calling the audiences ethical assumptions into question, and sequentially feel pity for the animals, because we as humans should care for their well-being. Then, he uses ethos based proofs by providing examples from experts with authority. These references include testimonies from scholars, investigators, and publishers, including The Oxford University Press, The Journal of Ethics, and over 70 references further building his claim. This establishes credibility because readers are more inclined to accept these abnormal beliefs with factual evidence from experts. However, even with the reliable references, this article is based mostly on Bruers’ moral beliefs and emotions, and it is not intended to be an exhaustive scientific study. Therefore, I would not consider this a sound source in itself because of its strong opinionated slant. His claim is strong, however it is limited and it does not address potential downfalls of his …show more content…
Bruers’ is effective in articulating this and bringing the audiences morals to question. He does this by further explaining the treatment of other living beings, and validates these animal rights claims using pathos and ethos based proof. Relying on the audience's emotion, he also provides backing for his argument by including factual evidence from experts, further building his articles credibility. Bruers opinion is opposing another that is most commonly held, and his rebuttal to this warrant may not be fully persuasive to an audience that may chose to eat meat because of previously held values or religious reasons. In conclusion, Bruers claim is thorough and covers all moral concerns of veganism, however it does not have enough evidence to convince the entirety of his audience to quit eating
First, he articulates this by using pathos value proofs, encouraging the audience to value animals integrity. For example he says, “all sentient beings, especially vertebrates with functional nervous systems, have the basic right to not be used merely as a bodily means (ie, against the will) for our non-vital ends, in particular for food and clothing.” Bruers’ goal in this passage seems to be calling the audiences ethical assumptions into question, and sequentially feel pity for the animals, because we as humans should care for their well-being. Then, he uses ethos based proofs by providing examples from experts with authority. These references include testimonies from scholars, investigators, and publishers, including The Oxford University Press, The Journal of Ethics, and over 70 references further building his claim. This establishes credibility because readers are more inclined to accept these abnormal beliefs with factual evidence from experts. However, even with the reliable references, this article is based mostly on Bruers’ moral beliefs and emotions, and it is not intended to be an exhaustive scientific study. Therefore, I would not consider this a sound source in itself because of its strong opinionated slant. His claim is strong, however it is limited and it does not address potential downfalls of his …show more content…
Bruers’ is effective in articulating this and bringing the audiences morals to question. He does this by further explaining the treatment of other living beings, and validates these animal rights claims using pathos and ethos based proof. Relying on the audience's emotion, he also provides backing for his argument by including factual evidence from experts, further building his articles credibility. Bruers opinion is opposing another that is most commonly held, and his rebuttal to this warrant may not be fully persuasive to an audience that may chose to eat meat because of previously held values or religious reasons. In conclusion, Bruers claim is thorough and covers all moral concerns of veganism, however it does not have enough evidence to convince the entirety of his audience to quit eating