Rhetorical Analysis Of 'Is Hunting Moral?'

Everyday, the sun rises in the morning and sets at night, but the debate about hunting always remains on the table. Hunters see their killing of an animal as an achievement, they put food on their tables, or a mount on their wall. Critics see this as a cruel way for a human being to take the life of an innocent animal. In the article “Is hunting a moral? A philosopher unpacks the question” written by Joshua Duclos, examined the question of why people hunt. Dudlos purpose was to describe the different types of hunting and contemplate whether hunting is moral is not. He establishes an sympathetic tone in order to bring together each side of the argument to create a sense of unity between hunters and non-hunters. Duclos begins building his credibility

This illustrates how the author uses simple appeals to convey ethos and provided facts and statistics, as well as emotional appeals to support his claim. He tried to use personal examples, but referred to in the beginning of his article, “As a non-hunter, I cannot say anything about what it feels like to shoot or trap an animal” (Is Hunting Moral?). This shows that he has not had a first-hand experiment with the issue and makes the reader believe that this is misrepresentation of his

Some believe you should keep nature out of it. This weakens the argument in which if hunting is moral or not. In the beginning, he based his argument on one simple argument of why people choose to hunt. Duclos chooses to return to his discussion whether hunting is moral or not. With Duclos returning to the beginning arguments and trying to make counter arguments, I feel is a major weakness for his argument. While returning to his first arguments about how critics often argue that hunting is immoral because it requires intentionally inflicting harm on innocent creatures. Even people who are not comfortable should acknowledge that many animals have the capacity to suffer. If it is wrong to inflict unwanted pain or death on an animal, then it is wrong to hunt. Today it is hard to argue that human hunting is strictly necessary in the same way that hunting is necessary for animals. The objection from necessary harm holds that hunting is morally permissible only if it is necessary for the hunter’s survival. “Necessary” could refer to nutritional or ecological need, which would provide moral cover for subsistence and therapeutic hunting. But sport hunting, almost by definition, cannot be defended this way. Duclos begins the essay by effectively persuading her readers of the hunting facts and how people