Week 4 Post 7

The major issues behind the neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism are very scientific. The idea is centralized around the idea of the central nervous system and pain. The idea is that the more evolved the species is, the less likely we are to eat it. The essay mentions such things as dolphins and how we would not eat it because it seems wrong to eat something that is so advanced. He also compares eating meat to eating humans. Why don't we eat other humans? It is because of pain. We cannot imagine causing that much pain to another human being or highly developed animal. This author makes some very logical points, but in order to change a lifestyle such as this, you must make a very strong argument that does not contain any flaws.

As an essay, this is a very good piece of writing. However, I do not think it is the best persuasive essay. This is an argumentative piece, but not necessarily persuasive. It has strengths in logic, and examples. However, I think there are some weaknesses in the delivery of the paper if it is indeed intended to be persuasive. I think the major weakness in this paper is that it does not evoke emotion. Until the very last part of this essay, there is no emotion in the paper. In order to make someone change such a fundamental part of their lifestyle, a writer MUST evoke a lot of emotion. I also think that this argument would better be presented in a speech, because the author could evoke emotion through their delivery. So I think that the information in the argument was good and valid, but I think the weakness was that it did not evoke enough emotion for the reader.