Massacre. Is it really?
111156 Hwang Sung Jae
11B4
From the past, questions regarding
animal rights have arisen. Following those questions, numerous public materials
have been made about the problems regarding animal rights. The film ‘Earthlings’
is also about animals. The film exclusively depicts how inhumanely animals are
treated. Most parts of the film are taken secretly since the factories and
other facilities do not want their inner parts to be unveiled. The film
definitely shows how cruelly animals are treated but the questions regarding
validity and effectiveness still exist.
Pathos, an appeal to
the emotions, is the main device used in this film. This way might be viewed as
effective, but the use of this device makes people unable to make logical
decisions. The film appeals to people’s feelings making people to decide based
on their sudden impulses. Since the film depicts how pathetically animals are
treated, people focus on pathos rather than logos. Slanted importance on pathos
mars the film’s validity. People should be able to decide in a neutral state of
mind, not a curved state of mind. Moreover, the places filmed provoke the
question of rationality again. The facilities shown in the film are clearly
guilty for their wrongdoings, but the number of facilities shown in the film is
definitely small. Thus, the generalization is not to be made easily by only
looking at the small numbers of facilities. As I was watching the film for the
first time, the thought that was mainly ruling over my mind was that I should
stop eating meat. The reason for the thought was that the scenes were depicted grossly.
The animals were killed by electronic shocks coming through the mouth to their
abdomen, by beating, and by putting holes in their brains. Anybody watching
those films would not think about eating meat during the film. However, after
watching the film, I had a second thought coming into my head. I thought that
not all meats are produced the way the film depicts. This is because the parts
shown in the film are only small parts of the facilities treating animals.
Therefore, I believe that the film lacks its support in validity and efficiency,
since the film focuses too much on pathos and the film depicts only limited
parts.
When reading books
or watching films, people think about the topics from their own perspective.
Likewise, I thought about the materials went over the film in my view. First,
like most of the people, I thought about not eating meat at first. Unlike the
thoughts I had at the first time, I found myself walking to the cafeteria and
eating meat with thoughts that not all meat is killed the way depicted in the
films running through my head. The scenes in the film made me think about
genocides of animals. The seals, foxes, and other animals are decimated for
people’s convenience. The idea of an animal decimation exists thoroughly through
the film. However, animals die in large numbers naturally. The earthquakes,
sudden changes in climates, and other natural catastrophes result in large
numbers of animal deaths. Although the behavior of facilities in the film is
wrong, the burden of guilt should not be given to those facilities just for the
reason that they have killed large numbers of animals. If the burden was to be
given for the decimation of animals, natural disasters should be given the same
burden, too. Why not for natural occurrences but only for humans? Thus, the
question regarding the basis of the guilt given to those facilities needs to be
solved. Maybe the facilities are guilty for killing large numbers of innocent
animals. However, maybe the animals can be killed since humans are at the top
of the food chain. It is common sense that stronger animals kill weaker animals.
The same logic is applied when the animals are killed. Humans kill the animals
for their convenience because humans need them for food and warmth. In nature,
lions and tigers kill zebras and cows for their food. As do lions and tigers in
nature, people kill seals, cows, and pigs for food. Thus, the facilities are
not as guilty as the film depicts since it is natural for top notch food chain
animals to consume bottom level food chain animals.
To sum up, I do not
agree to the film overall, since the film lacks validity and effectiveness. The
validity is debunked because the places shown in the film are only the small
parts of the facilities. Moreover, many people do not change their behaviors
just because of the film, since they acknowledged the fact that not all animals
are killed as cruelly as the film depicts. The film fails to logically appeal
to people to change their behaviors because the film mainly focuses on
appealing to people’s feelings. Finally, the burden of guilt is not as great as
the film shows because the basic notion of chain food, stronger animals kill weaker
animals, applies to people as well.
