Massacre. Is it really?

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.