Leslie Bisgould gives a compelling and very effective TED talk called “It’s time to re-evaluate our relationship with animals” and it explains why we need to actively do our part in understanding the laws that ultimately cause the necessary suffering of animals. This text gives examples, statistics, and built up knowledge to persuade the audience that animals should not be looked at in terms of property, but as an equal individual who should be respected and given a different classification. This talk urges the audience to take action in establishing an equal ground for both humans and animals, to curtail the unnecessary suffering that can be clearly discovered by anyone who takes the time to look.
The audience is first requested to raise their hands if they agree with the information regarding the humane way animals are to be treated. The reactions are what to be expected, so Bisgould goes on to arrange one of the key components of the talk, which is explaining why the laws that are present in every jurisdiction in America are ultimately useless. “When we see that laws protect animals from suffering they seem superficially impressive but it doesn’t take long and you don’t have to be a lawyer to figure out that if the law prohibits unnecessary suffering it creates a corollary; meaning it permits us to cause necessary suffering” (Bisgould). This consequently justifies the suffering of some animals in certain situations. There is no explicit definition of “necessary”, which makes the horizon of potential suffering even broader than before. Passing animal cruelty laws give some individuals a loophole to permit “necessary” suffering. “So our laws prohibit gratuitous suffering, the kind that’s caused sheerly by what we might call wicked intent. But as soon as there’s a human purpose, and really almost any purpose will do, that suffering is necessary and protected” (Bisgould). By giving the crowd a cut and dry illustration of what they presumed was a valid law, it almost generates an untruthfulness between the government and a common person who was previously under the impression that laws completely protected their beloved pets. This sends the audience the notion that the law is misleading, which causes expressions of anger and highlights the use of pathos.
The TED talk continues and Bisgould mentions John Locke, primarily to speak about his notions of property. Animals weren’t there as respected companions, but were “things” that people could use in whatever way they pleased. The only part of this that was prohibited was the use of the “thing” to hurt someone else. She uses this to transition into her next thought, “You know, when you see them traveling in those trucks on the highway on the way to slaughter, for many of them that’s the first time they’ve ever been outside in their lives. And they are so depleted that several millions of them arrive every year to the slaughter house already dead. Every story we hear in the news about violence against an animal, there is an industrial counterpart where that violence is normalized and multiplied by hundreds or thousands or millions of times” (Bisgould). Giving this visual statement verifies that John Lockes’ statement on property, is still present today. Once people consider the sickening image of helpless animals without a voice, breathing in fresh air for the first time in their primarily short lives, just to be sent to die, they are left feeling ineffective because for the most part they were naïve and didn’t recognize the challenges millions of animals have to suffer every day. This brings out emotions of families who do have companion animals, and who also wouldn’t want to see their best friend harmed in any way. The use of pathos is powerful in this example, because the visual Bisgould effectively presents will make anybody feel upset. Logos is used as well in this part of her talk when she says that millions of animals a year are being transported to the slaughter house. This shows the audience a real number and gives them a view of how many animals are really being hurt in this process.
“We don’t treat animals badly because they’re property, we classify animals as property so we can treat them badly. We can classify them differently” (Bisgould). With the reminder of Darwins’ explanation that we are all animals, there is the question of the justification of treatment. Animals seem to have been historically treated differently due to the assumptions that they aren’t able to feel, think, or communicate. Darwin discredited these assumptions, so Bisgould eventually gives the statement that the laws that have been previously set in stone, have lost their factual premise. She then explains to the audience that humans seem to have an unspoken equality, but it’s not due to the fact that we’re actually equal in our capacities or abilities. She says that we have an uncountable amount of differences, but we decide that it’s not important. “In another talk, we might explore whether human rights operate more in theory than in practice, but at least we are working on it, and that’s where animal rights theory comes along. It asks us to confront this question: what are the morally relevant differences between humans and other animals that make it acceptable for us to hurt them in ways that would never be acceptable to hurt one another?” (Bisgould). Given this question, she then assures the crowd that they are not attempting to extend human rights to your pet, but more so establishing rights for your animal that may mean changing their status from property to legal person. The mere thought of your pet as a legal person may seem bizarre, but Bisgould then tells the audience to consider the amount of inanimate objects that are legal persons in the idea that their interests are legally protected and they can go to court to advance them. A few examples are corporations, churches, trusts, and municipalities. She then gives the unfortunate fact that animals are the only sentient beings who aren’t given these rights. In these few statements she presents, she uses logos as a way to get peoples’ minds questioning the limited rights a living thing has compared to the rights an inanimate object does. By giving Darwins’ explanation, she also uses ethos because she knows he has credibility and knowledge in an area that she wants to highlight.
Stories give Bisgould the upper hand when trying to get the audience to understand something that may not be effective by just using facts. She tells a story of two people who come home from work that can be seen completely differently in the eyes of the law for doing essentially the same thing. Bisgould tells this in a way that exhibits the standards the law sees as abuse. She explains that the first person comes home from work in an awful mood, just to be more irritated by the barking of his dog. He realizes he has a blow torch, so he restrains the dog, gets the blow torch, and burns her. The second person who comes from work is studying the efficiency of treatments of burns. She returns from the laboratory where throughout the day she had been restraining and burning dogs. The first person will be charged with animal abuse, since he had no purpose for burning the dog and it was unnecessary. The second person, however, will be protected by her institution, supported with tax dollars, and recognized if her results end up being published. This is what the law thinks of as “necessary suffering”. It gives the audience a clear picture of what is morally right and morally wrong in the eyes of the law. “If we ever hear of such things at all will be assured that the experiment was humane” (Bisgould). This demonstrates to the audience how skewed things seem to be. It displays pathos, as it brings out the confusion people seem to be feeling because of the injustices animals are facing.
A fourteen-minute TED talk about the immoral ways corporations, laws, and even the common person treats powerless dogs who are in need of affection and warmth, effectively presents the case that animals do need to be considered differently. Although most people will claim they wouldn’t hurt an animal on purpose, there are instances in which people do it for the safety of their jobs. It may not seem moral, but Bisgould claims laws are not fixed forever. This TED talk successfully illustrates the thoughtless minds of some, and broadcasts stories that illicit certain emotions that make a human want to do more to learn and create better lives for animals who aren’t lucky enough have them. She clearly illuminates the injustices, the wrongful classification, and the imperceptions of humans that animals seem to be going through on a daily basis. Bisgould clearly seems to understand the ploys that big corporations blind the public with. She gives a clearly substantially moving talk that does everything it intended to do.