Identify the argument that Jonathan Safran Foer makes in Let Them Eat Dog: A Modest Proposal for Tossing Fido in the Oven to discuss the major points argued, target audience, and the appeals used.

Question

1. Identify the argument.
2. Is the argument effective? Why or why not?
3. Break down the entire argument

Here is the link to the article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703574604574499880131341174

Answer 1

Richard P.,

I'm very familiar with Jonathan Safran's article "Let Them Eat Dog" and have discussed it before. Feel free to use my thoughts and insights on the topic below for research only.

Jonathan Safran Foer's argument in "Let Them Eat Dog: A Modest Proposal for Tossing Fido in the Oven" is that eating dogs is a more ethical and sustainable option than eating other animals, such as cows and pigs, and that the taboo against eating dogs should be reconsidered. He targets a general audience, but likely primarily those who are concerned about animal welfare and sustainability.

The effectiveness of the argument depends on one's perspective. Some may find the argument convincing and well-reasoned, while others may find it offensive and repugnant. In the argument, Foer uses appeals to logic and emotion, citing statistics about the environmental and ethical impact of different forms of animal agriculture, and also uses anecdotes about his own experiences with dogs to try to challenge readers' preconceptions about the taboo against eating dogs.

Foer's argument is that Eating dog is a more ethical and sustainable alternative to eating other animals, such as cows and pigs. He argues that the taboo against eating dogs is based on cultural and emotional reasons rather than logical or ethical ones. He also points out that dog meat is already consumed in many cultures around the world, and that the environmental impact of dog farming is significantly less than that of other forms of animal agriculture. Additionally, Foer uses anecdotes from his own experiences with dogs to try to challenge readers' preconceptions about the taboo against eating dogs and to appeal to their emotions.

Foer also addresses common objections to the idea of eating dogs, such as the argument that dogs are kept as pets and have a special emotional bond with humans. He counters this by pointing out that the same argument can be made for other animals, such as cows and pigs, which are also kept as companions in some cultures. He also acknowledges that there are ethical concerns related to the treatment of dogs in the meat industry, but argues that these concerns can be addressed through stricter regulation and oversight.

Furthermore, Foer uses statistics and data to support his argument. He cites the fact that dog meat is already consumed in many cultures around the world, and that the environmental impact of dog farming is significantly less than that of other forms of animal agriculture. He also argues that by eating dogs, we could reduce the number of stray dogs, which he says is a problem in many countries.

In conclusion, Foer's argument is that eating dogs is a more ethical and sustainable option than eating other animals and that the taboo against eating dogs should be reconsidered. He targets a general audience, but likely primarily those who are concerned about animal welfare and sustainability. He uses appeals to logic and emotion, citing statistics about the environmental and ethical impact of different forms of animal agriculture, and also uses anecdotes about his own experiences with dogs to try to challenge readers' preconceptions about the taboo against eating dogs.

Hope this is helpful,

Erik L.