Peter Singer, “All Animals Are Equal”
Michael Pollan, “An Animal’s Place”
During Session 24, we will discuss the Pollan and Singer essays, which address the question of whether it is ethical for humans to eat meat. Read Singer first, because Pollan responds directly to him. Singer’s argument is complex, so consider the value of reading it twice.
As you complete this assignment, think about the value for your own writing of “dueling sources,” such as Singer and Pollan, which directly respond to/debate with one another.
Consider the questions below:
- Singer: How does Singer make his case for vegetarianism and animal rights? What assumptions does Singer make about his readership? What analogies enable him to argue forcefully for animal rights? What adjective(s) would you use to describe his tone as a writer? In what ways does he draw upon ethos (appeal to common values/authority), pathos (use of emotion) and logos (use of logic)? How do you respond to Singer’s argument about animal rights—agree, disagree, unsure? Why?
- Pollan: How does Pollan craft his introduction to speak both to readers and to Singer? What does he assume about his audience? How does he respond to Singer’s argument about animal rights? You might consider his use of ethos and logos (and possibly pathos). In what ways do you see Pollan’s comic voice emerge? How do you respond to Pollan’s argument—agree, disagree, unsure? Why? How does this piece compare in style and theme with “Why Mow”?
- Which essay did you find more convincing? Both authors write from a public intellectual perspective, seeking to influence a wider readership beyond those who would consider themselves academics or intellectuals. As a writer, do you see yourself modeling your own essay writing style on either (or both/neither) of these authors?
