Siebert's Argument Against Elephants

846 Words4 Pages
A controversial topic has been whether humans have acted in an ethical way when it comes to “attacking” animals. On one hand, humans claim they only attack animals when it comes to self-defense. From this perspective, humans hurt animals and use self-defense to justify their actions. Others say that animals are defenseless against humans and that humans abuse their power over innocent creatures. Charles Siebert, who is an essayist, whose works have appeared in the New York Times Magazine and Harpers, says “Human beings have, by and large, made use of the earth without much consideration for the environmental and social needs of other animals.” According to this view, animals need to be considered more when it comes to human actions in their habitat. If not, it could lead to problems and animals acting out. In “An Elephant Crackup?” (8 October 2006) Charles Siebert exemplifies how relationships between humans and animals are changing. In this essay, I will construct an account for Siebert’s argument, identify the main claim as well as supporting claims, evaluate the supporting evidence and organizational strategies. BOTANI !1 !…show more content…
Due to human behavior, elephants are being separated from their families and are beginning to act out irrationally and have been diagnosed with chronic stress. He tells us about their habitat, how their contact has been cut off with other elephants and the collapse of elephant culture. Siebert supports his main claim by giving us examples of instances where elephants have acted out and began to hurt humans because they know no better. He has conducted interviews that he also shares with us in “An Elephant

    More about Siebert's Argument Against Elephants

      Open Document