EXAMPLE D
1120 Harvard Way
El Dorado Hills, Ca 95762
September 23, 2015
Nicholas Goldberg
Editor of the Editorial Pages
Los Angeles Times
202 West 1st Street
Los Angeles, Ca 90012
Dear Mr. Goldberg:
On October 8, 2006, an article by Victoria Braithwaite was published by the Los Angeles Times OP-ED pages. In this article, Braithwaite exposes the truth about striking similarities between the brain structure of humans and our scaled, slippery counterparts. She develops a scientifically supported argument that fish may be able to feel pain. As she questions the ethics behind the use of fishing hooks, she never implicitly states a solution that she supports. She instead criticizes our scientific disinterest in fish, which may come from the fear of a proper realization about how fish actually feel. I understand the plausibility of fish being capable of feeling pain. However, whether they feel it or not does not answer the most important question- are fish able to process the fact that they are hurting? It is unlikely that an animal of that size, an animal with a brain smaller than a bouncy ball, can think emotionally. Although fish may have been proven to feel pain, it would be irresponsible to dramatically change the fishing industry as a response to faulty and imaginative assumptions on how fish perceive pain.
Braithwaite argues that if fish feel pain, what we do is profound cruelty. Although I can see how shoving a hook into an animal’s mouth is considered barbaric, the truth is that nature is no more forgiving than we are. This is where we begin to question human nature. If we are expected to be “humane” in the killing of cognitively insufficient animals, we are kidding ourselves. The truth is there is no humanity in killing whatsoever. Killing, although a part of nature, is what our now primary human race decided to drift away from to claim our own humanity, our role as a group of superior beings. As the course of frequent events occur in nature, it is impossible to recognize brutal killings as “immoral” simply because, they aren’t. These killings are not genocide or murder. These killings are innate. Animals need to kill to survive, and we, although having more mental power than any other creature, are animals. Our humanity keeps us noble- not alive.
Braithwaite also uses ethical and emotional rhetoric to her advantage. She gains her readers’ trust by decorating her piece with scientific research, “When I have a headache, I reach for aspirin. What happens if we give the fish painkillers after injecting the noxious substances? Remarkably, they begin to behave normally again.” (Hooked on a Myth) However this research is all completely one sided as it attempts to create an emotional connection between the reader and fish. None of the evidence mentions anything on the other side of the fish-pain debate, like that of Science Daily which states that the pain fish feel is not the same as we humans do. (Do Fish Feel Pain?)
Although Braithwaite brings up plausible points, she fails to mention that discouraging fishing hooks would do no more than create a spiral of changes due to our hopelessly propaganda-prone population. Before we know it, people will begin to question if suffocation is not “humane” enough to be used on virtually every fish we consume. This could have a dramatic effect on the fishing industry, which is a billion-dollar business feeding an all time high of approximately 540 million people. (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) The economy cannot afford any major disruptions, and our nation cannot afford any more empty stomachs. Despite her strong opinion towards the abandonment of fish hooks, she claims the use of ridding them is not justified. “Of course, this doesn’t mean that we necessarily must change our behavior.” (Hooked on a Myth) Instead of proposing a solution to the problem, Braithwaite simply complains about our scientific disinterest in fish. “But I do find it curious that it has taken us so long even to bother to ask whether fish feel pain. Perhaps no one really wanted to know.” (Hooked on a Myth) This could be because her purpose is solely to expose rather than to persuade, but that is certainly not made very clear.
Ultimately, Braithwaite’s argument fails to prove itself legitimate against other less biased sources. Although she backs herself up with scientific information, her evidence is hopelessly one-sided and appeals to nothing but the reader’s emotion. Her compassionate arguments towards fish allow her to get a little ahead of herself, despite her plausible claims. Even if her point is accurate, she never answers the question- why should I care? What does she want me to do? In the end, Braithwaite’s argument reeks with the stench of hypocrisy which seems a little fishy to me.
Yours Sincerely,
A. Model Student
12th-grade English student
Oak Ridge High School
El Dorado Hills, California