Good Article Review About Rhetorical Analysis Of Vegetarianism

Brian Solomon’s essay entitled “Vegetarianism Is the Right Moral Choice For Many Reasons” is at its core, an emotional plea to convince readers to drastically change their eating habits by becoming vegetarians. Solomon blames humans for taking an immoral and unethical decision and participating in the deaths of millions of animals in order to secure the continuation of the human race. In this critique, I will analyze how the author makes his appeals to the audience and whether his claims are substantiated.
In the beginning of the essay, the author unabashedly states his position on animal rights outright. The author takes special care to emphasize the manner of death that the animals succumbed to in order to make his point: “burned and castrated”, “crippled”, “dipped in scalding water.” (p. 1) This presents a visual picture to his audience juxtaposing the victimhood of animals against oppression of its human tormentors.
Solomon incorporates statistics to help support his view of the manner that animals are bred and the inhumane nature that they are raised is impressive. The statistics are presented in a matter-of-fact way, leading to the sterile nature of this topic. Furthermore, he brings to our attention in bulletpoint form, the agonizing deaths of the manner that cows, chickens and turkeys die. The layout of the statistics is organized in a series of parallel elements culminating in a final climax: the torture of the baby chicks for its inability to produce any value to the human supply food chain: “thrown into garbage bags, suffocated, crushed or hacked to death.” (p.1)
Solomon seems to infer that human beings with all their wisdom, capabilities and technology choose to participate in the immoral act of animal deaths. Furthermore, we are straying further from our roots to fellow living creatures by participating in the “cannibalism” that is being facilitated by sterile machines. He laments the detached nature that humans have evolved to and the loss of our “direct connection” of animals (p.6).
Although the author presents his case in a convincing manner, I’m not so sure about his premise on ethics. If killing animals is unethical, why don’t we do this for criminals on death row? Secondly, realizing that vegetarianism is an extreme lifestyle, the author provides other alternative ways that are ethical. Locally produced goods, free-range and organic meat are some of the choices. However, Solomon fails to mention that these options may be scarce in inner-city areas that lack options such as fresh fruit and vegetables. Organic produce isn’t even on the radar of residents who live in a “food desert” and where supermarkets with fresh produce, locally sourced or not may not be a viable option. Furthermore, free-range and organic meats often come at a premium price that not everyone can afford. This further maximizes the inequity between the “haves” and the “have-nots.”
Solomon is a member of City Council and I would envision this speech being made in an arena made up of a mixture of politicians and animal-rights activists.