Eating Animals

Foer continues his distinction between logical reasoning and emotional, ethical thought regarding eating meat. George serves as a symbolic representation of the animals that people choose not to eat for non-logical reasons. Even though dogs are edible, are arguably as intelligent or less intelligent than some animals we do eat, and serve as companions only in some parts of the world, they are still barred from the American diet. By citing a recipe for dog meat from the Philippines, Foer evokes the same pathos/ethos argument that he argues could be applied to all animals. The reader is presumed to be offended by the recipe for dogs. This chapter is reminiscent of A Modest Proposal (1729) by Jonathan Swift, who wrote in the early 18th century and famously satirized the issue of Irish Catholic people, suggesting that the Irish people sell their children as food to wealthy English people. Likewise, Foer, less satirically, suggests that eating dogs, like George, would be beneficial overall in the American diet. The offense that the Foer expects readers to feel at this suggestion is meant to focus the argument on the reasoning that goes behind eating or not eating certain animals. Just as the reader is likely not offended by recipes for pork, beef, or chicken, a Filipino reader would not be offended by the recipe for dog, establishing a relativity in selective meat eating. In short, decisions on which animals to eat are based on feeling and social norms, as opposed to logic.

The ethos, in the sense of social norms, that Foer is noting is revealed through a logical comparison between dogs and fish. In terms of intelligence, fish are able to prove sufficiently that they have a form of intelligence that is not lesser than a dog’s, and their experiences are shown to be at least as valid. This comparison forces the reader to compare their pet’s experiences to the experience of gaffing, which is the use of a small pickaxe to drag fish onto boats. For the reader, the idea of their pet suffering that kind of pain is assumed to be intolerable, so Foer calls attention to the fact that gaffing is a common method of fishing. The pain of the fish is no less real than the hypothetical pain of the pet, and yet most people seem to accept the fish’s pain in a way that they would not accept their pet’s. This comparison leads to Foer’s discussion using another type of ethos in which he relies on the perspectives of known or respected figures. Discussing The Balance of Personal Shame and Desires, Foer cites Franz Kafka, famous for his absurdist and modernist writing. Kafka felt shame about eating meat, and he felt relief as a vegetarian when confronting a fish at the aquarium. This relief is an emotion that Foer poses as an alternative to the shame or guilt of supporting and endorsing an unethical farming system.

However, Foer does combine the ethos and pathos of his argument with logic, as he brings up seahorses. Essentially, Foer proposes that some animals have more acknowledged value than others in the current state of society, and the animals that people are most willing to abuse or allow abuses of are those that are eaten. Seahorses, though, are not eaten, and they are a niche and interesting animal that Foer observes are appreciated by most people. As such, Foer brings in the fact that seahorses are severely endangered by modern fishing methods, which destroy habitats and kill a variety of creatures other than the ones intended for consumption. This fact is meant to combine with the previous layers of ethos and pathos, in which it is only acceptable to kill and eat specific animals, to show how eating meat also damages animals outside of our food choices. Even though a person may be ordering shrimp, they are also inevitably contributing to the deaths of seahorses, which should evoke a negative emotional response based on the same social norms that exclude dogs from farming and consumption. Foer then links back to the narrative framing of Eating Animals by tying together his discussion of seahorses, his dog George, and his son to explain how the emotional and social responses to the atrocities are both natural and good. The shame or guilt that the reader may feel while reading about the seahorses through the lens of a family pet is a signal that a change needs to be made in both the lives of individuals and in the society they occupy.