The Human Flaw

At the beginning of Chapter 31, there are several instances in which humans display continuous flaws in their argument, in which their arguments always start and end with ‘me.’ Everything about their view is about themselves; even when they state that it’s about others, in the end, it’s about them. At one point, a human rises to state that God has given them many gifts, including the use of animals so they could have resources of silk, cotton, and furs to cover their naked bodies, which is their excuse to continue slaving animals, “Their coarse clothing and rough hides, foul coverings, and unconcealed nakedness show that they are our slaves that we are their masters and owners, who can treat them as our property” (The Case of Animals vs. Man, pg. 259). The Human’s arguments come around to it being about them instead of focusing on how animals may feel about being regaled and killed for these resources to forcefully provide Humans clothing when they never consented to such an act.

It does beg one to argue that Humans have taken and taken from animals without asking or seeking permission on how Humans conduct themselves in getting their resources. This points to the Predator’s argument to the Humans: “Tell me, human, would you have any of the things you boast of had you not taken them from others, from other animals, by force” (The Case of Animals vs Man, pg. 260). It’s a reminder that throughout the book, Humans are boasting and repeating claims about animals being useful and their purpose is to serve them because they benefit them and their resources; the Predator reminds humans that without them, they wouldn’t have those resources even though Animals have forced to provide for humans.

It does show that without Animals, Humans wouldn’t be able to survive, and there would be a lack of resources that they would face. Yet, it’s a reminder that Humans have not considered asking permission for anything; everything has been done through force, leading to violence and disputes.

-Laney Arroyo

The Rabbit versus the Horse

In The Case of Animals versus Man, there is an illogical argument made by the rabbit in chapter 5, “The Animals Charge Humans with Oppression”. The rabbit argues that dogs and hunting birds have an excuse to aid men because they are carnivores. However, the horse is not a carnivore. Instead, it’s the horse’s, “ignorance, [and] stupidity–[that causes its] failure to grasp the true nature of things,” (164). The argument started off logically because carnivorous animals cannot be blamed for what they must eat to survive. They have to eat other animals to get the nutrients and energy they need. The horse, however, does not eat meat so it should not have any need to side with the humans. This is where the rabbit’s argument begins to stray away from logic. The rabbit decides to attack the character of the horse and blames its stupidity on why it helps humans. Instead of coming up with a real, logical argument the rabbit goes for the easiest explanation. This is interesting because the horse seems to be the only animal that is dumbed down. Horses are normally revered for being smart and having a lot of personality. So, there is irony in how the rabbit views the horse versus how horses are perceived by human society.

By: Tierney Bowden

The One In Which the Animals Are More Persuasive Than the Humans

Tabitha Bates

Overall, the animals’ arguments are more persuasive and generally put together better and more logically than the humans’ arguments. Since the very beginning chapters of the book, the humans present arguments that may seem sound, but then are promptly disproven and refuted by their animal counterparts. An early example of this occurs throughout Chapter One. The first human spokesman claims that “‘These cattle, beasts of prey, and wild creatures- all animals in fact- are our slaves. We are their masters.” (p. 103). Later, on page 104, another human quotes the Quran: “…Cattle [God] did create for you… horses, mules, and asses for riding and splendour...’” and goes on to state that “There are many other verses in the Qurʾan, Torah, and Gospels  which show that they were created for our sake and that they are our slaves and we their masters.” (104). So, humans call upon religious textual evidence to claim that they are the masters of the beasts of the earth. However, they are purposefully misinterpreting the text. The humans’ argument is quickly and soundly refuted by the animals’ far more persuasive and better put together arguments. 

 Also calling upon religious text (in a far less kissing up way, at that), the mule claims that after God created the earth “… He gave [it] to living beings- animals and plants.” It is also revealed in this passage that God created animals before He created human.s  The mule goes on, still using religious textual evidence, to argue that God created humans “to care for the animals and profit by them, not to abuse or mistreat them.” (p. 105). What I would call the finishing blow to the humans’ argument in this chapter, at least, occurs on page 106, when the mule states that there is no Quranic evidence that man is master and animal is slave and that actually, “‘[God] subjected animals to man only to help humans and keep them from harm.” There are far more instances of the animal’ delegates refuting the human delegates through using more persuasive and sounder arguments.

Animals More Persuasive than Men

In The Case of the Animals Versus Man, though the animals do have flaws in their arguments just like the humans, the animals are ultimately more persuasive and less flawed in their arguments than their human opponents. The human arguments are often repeated and constantly repealed by the animals. The humans attempted to argue their right to enslave animals, but rarely were their arguments not refuted. In page 104, the humans cited verses of the Quran that stated “of the cattle some are for burden and some are for meat”(104) and other similar verses mentioning how animals are for helping humans , but the animals were quick to point out the verses never permitted abuse and enslavement. Soon after the humans claim being on two legs while animals stand on four makes humans superior. This view is summarized by the Jinni King with his question, “Is it not a royal trait to sit erect and stand upright, and aren’t bent backs and bowed heads the marks of slaves?”(109). The animals give detailed explanation about how this is incorrect, that in fact all beings were made for their suitable environment and needs. Cattle that eat grass are hunched down to bring their mouths to the ground, while humans pick fruit and eat from high trees, thus need to be able to reach great heights as opposed to come low to the ground. Much later in the story, the humans insist their high intellect, vast knowledge, and structured hierarchies is a sign of human superiority to all animals. The bee is quick to denounce such beliefs, explaining the vast social organizations of bees and ants, and their extensive knowledge of their surroundings and tasks that need to be done. 

Though there are flaws in the animals’ arguments and points of conflict, such as when the rabbit insults the horse and the human is the one who defends the horse, the animals ultimately have less flaws in their arguments than the humans and are ultimately more persuasive.

Humans are Overrated

In the Case of the Animals vs. Man, the animals’ arguments are far more logical and less flawed compared to the humans’ arguments. Ultimately, the animal’s reasonings stood out to be more compelling and rational. Although both sides clearly had flaws in their rebuttals, the animals were able to contradict almost every argument the humans had. Therefore, it allowed for the animals’ to convince the King that the humans are not their masters. Unfortunately, the humans never established a rebuttal that would negate any of the animals’ reasonings. Majority of the humans’ argument, degraded animals and would praise the human’s lifestyle. Furthermore, the humans never had a strong argument that would convince the King, or readers, why they deserve to be masters of all animals. Unlike the humans, the animals’ arguments are always tied back to their main reasoning that God did not favor any one of his creations. 

One of the humans arguments used in the case was, “Our fair form, erect stature, upright carriage, and keen senses, our subtle powers of discrimination, our sharp minds and superior intellects all show that we are the masters and they, our slaves” (46). In this argument, the humans dispute that due to their physical form and appearance they should hold ownership of the animals. The animals quickly debunk this plea and explain that every part of their body served a purpose for them intended by God. Much of the humans’ case was trying to validate how poorly they treated the animals. Although the animals’ arguments do contain flaws, many of their reasonings stood out to be more persuasive than the humans’ arguments. For example, when the frog, the spokesman of the water animals, explained that smaller animals are able to consume larger animals and vice versa. This established equity between them because at the end of the human lifetime they can be consumed by that smallest creature. “They can be eaters or eaten. So what do the Adamites have to boast of over us and all other animals? Their fate is like ours” (228). It enhanced the animals main reasoning that not one species or creature is more powerful than the other. Every creature on earth created by God, is dependent on other animals and each is equally important.

Angeles Hernandez

Lets Go Animals!

In the Case of Animals Vs. Man, we can see that both the humans and the animals are posing good arguments, but at the end the animals are providing stronger evidence. The human arguments seem more like statements that set them up to be countered by the animals because they provide little to no evidence to back up their points. Therefore, giving the animals a chance to respond with well supported answers that makes the humans look completely wrong. Throughout the fable we can see many examples of this from different animals.

One animal that makes good argumentative points is the delegate of the beasts of prey, the jackal. For example, in chapter 31 the humans try to argue that they are masters and the animals slave by saying that they have fine clothing and garments while the animals have very coarse clothing  and rough hides. Where the jackal then replied with, ”Why, he cited among their merits this and that article of fine clothing and soft covering. Tell me, human, would you have any of the things you boast of had you not taken them from others, from other animals, by force?’”(pg. 260). The jackal is making a good point by saying if it weren’t for the animals they would not have any of these fine clothing that they boast of. Also the jackal says that the humans take part in the work of a slave where they have to work to get the hides of the animals ready to be worn, but are hurting their body over time until they die, which the jackal says is a punishment from God for killing the animals. This is not the only time that the animals respond with a great answer. 

The delegate of the carnivores is also able to defend the animals when the humans say, “‘Because, of all the parties gathered here, none is wickeder than you, O predators. None is more heartless, useless or noxious, none is more ravenous or bloodthirsty!’”(pg. 262). Where they then reply with a strong statement, “Said the delegate of the carnivores, ‘We learned this from you. We modelled our actions on your treatment of these beasts.’”(pg. 262). Here the animals have a clear explanation of how the humans have made them reframe from their old ways of life. The animals said that before the creation of Adam and his children they had no need to hunt and kill other animals because there were naturally already enough carcasses for them to eat. Showing us that the humans actions have caused the animals to change their ways and when they are just trying to survive they become labeled as evil merciless beasts. Overall, the animals have shown that they have evidence in order to back up statements that they make and to be able to counter the statements of the humans.

-Francisco Alonso

The Pig’s Identity Crisis

At first, when reading The Case of the Animals versus Man, points were being made left and right. For example, on the human’s side, “‘Our fair form, erect stature, upright carriage, and keen senses, our subtle powers of discrimination, our sharp minds and superior intellects all show that we are the masters and they, our slaves.’” (pg. 109) Their argument interprets them as being more superior than the animals because they have more dominance towards them; they believe that their actions, thoughts, and human figures allow them to call themselves masters and the animals’ slaves. On the animal side, they pointed out that a human’s claim doesn’t have anything to support its argument; “‘God aid your Majesty to the truth’, the animal spokesman answered. ‘Listen and you shall know that God did not give them this for or shape them in this way to mark them as master. Nor did He create us in the form we have to brand us as slaves. He knew and wisely ordained that their form is best for them and ours for us.’” (pg. 109) The animal’s argument states that God did not make each creation the same nor did He make each creation to be interpreted as a master, He made each creation to fit their structure. The arguments made by humans do not meet this high standard because they do not provide sufficient evidence to back their discussion. On the other hand, the arguments presented by the animals do meet this high standard because they provided reasoning to their explanation.

As the debate continues on animals versus men, they stray away from clarity because the pig is brought into the debate, and this questions the pig’s status. During the conversation, it was brought up by “one of the jinni scholars said, ‘No indeed! The pig does not belong to the cattle. He’s a beast of prey. Don’t you see that he has tusks and eats carrion?’” (pg. 120) Each religion has different viewpoints on the pig: the Muslims and Jews find the pig revolting, while the Romans and Christians do not and eat the meat of a pig. Others treat the pigs as other animals like cows or sheep and like the Greeks, they use the pig for medical treatments. The pig is very much confused because they do not know if they should be grateful, or they should feel wronged. The way they call the pig “a beast of prey” (pg. 120) and they have the pig sorted into different categories shows that there isn’t a logical consistency for both sides of the arguments; the pig is very much disorientated from this debate because he makes this argument about himself and his identity crisis.

-Sandra Hernandez Gonzalez

Inconsistency in The Case of the Animal Vs Man

In The Case of the Animals versus Man, the humans argue that they are superior and masters to all animals. On the other hand, the animals argue against the humans’ dominance. Both points of views are listened to by the King of Jinn who will later make a ruling. Through constant debating, we can find some inconsistency in each side’s reasoning. During one of the human’s rebuttal, they questioned the animals spokesperson’s expertise,” if you are the learned spokesman of the beasts, why is the camel’s neck so long” (112). In this sentence the humans categorize not only the camel, but all animals as beasts, creatures that are unpleasant to the eye. The humans argue here that they are God’s best formed and most attractive creation, therefore they should be superior to the animals. In the animal’s rebuttal, the spokesman made it clear to the humans and the king that all of the animal’s parts served a purpose. All animals, along with the camel, were intentionally created that way by God. In the ending of their argument, we see a bit of inconsistency coming from the animals. “Our males are not aroused by your females beauties, or are our females drawn to the charms of your males– just as blacks don’t find the charms of whites attractive, or whites those of blacks, and just as boy-lovers have no passion for the charms of girls and wenchers have no desire for boys. So, Mr Human Being, your boasts of superior beauty are groundless”(113). I believe that the animals intended to debunk the human’s argument of being the most attractive creation however it lacked logic. Questioning mix racial and homosexual partners seemed unlogical in their argument. It is very ironic and hypocritical that the animals bash on the humans and the way they form relations. Unlike humans, animals use sex only for reproduction and survival of their species. In this argument, the animal’s voice is more antagonizing than logical which is more of the human’s style of arguing. Most of the humans reasons as to why they should be dominant, is just to demoralize the animals and make themselves sound perfect.

Angeles Hernandez

Where Does The Pig Stand?

In the book, The Case of the Animals versus Man, we see a huge argument between humans and animals about if animals are truely the slaves of humans. Throughout this argument the humans were able to state their side of the argument while the animals were able to counter using their personal experiences. The humans main argument is that they have a body that is superior to those of animals and therefore they need to enslave them in order to help them survive. However, the animals disagree with this and say that each animal, including humans, were created with a purpose in mind and that the form of their body contributes to this purpose. Which then lets the animals go into arguing about the maltreatment they have been experiencing, and they were making very good arguments until the pig was asked to speak. From pages 119 to 121 we see the pig state his feelings about how humans treat them, but takes a very odd stand that in some ways hurts the animals arguments. As soon as the mule asked the pig to speak there was a huge argument that both humans and animals took part in about if the pigs are part of the cattle. Humans began saying that pigs are not part of the cattle and others said they were, but others even said that they are a cross between beast and animal. The pig then responds with, “Good Lord! I don’t know what to say or of whom to complain, with all the welter of conflicting things that are said of me”(pg. 120). This shows that the pig is struggling understanding what is even being argued and is battling his own problem. This was a big flaw in the argument for the animals because the pig is showing confusion on the problem at hand and showing that there is not much unity between the animals. Also however the pig goes on to state that some humans hate even being around his species while others really value what the pigs bring, which makes the pig feel valued and show again that it really is stuck in deciding what point to take in the argument. The last thing the pig said was, “No wonder we’re confused. We don’t know whom to thank and against whom to complain of injustice.”(pg. 121). Overall, this last line goes to show that there is also a problem in the animals themselves because in ways some animals treat the pigs in the same way that a human does and knowing that most of these animals are domesticated one can say that the animals have learned this from being around humans.

-Francisco Alonso       

The Case of Baloney Vs. Baloney

By Jose Lopez

A persuasive speech has the ability to inspire, persuade, and establish a message by using words to make the audience comprehend the point of view the speaker is trying to invoke. In “The Case of the Animals versus Man Before the King of the Jinn” there have been instances where arguments through persuasion have been flawed for both sides of the argument. The story is about an argument occurring between humans and animals that has been taken to the King of Jinn. Humans have been accused by the animals for being abusive and insulting by making irrational points that animals were deserved to be treated as less than humans. Furthermore, animals themselves have been contradicting each other throughout the arguments.

The first argument that is formed from the humans is that they stand up straight and animals bend over to the floor because God intended the humans to rule over the animals. However, the animals contradicted this belief and stated, “He knew and wisely ordained that their form is best for them and ours for us.” (109). The argument continued and the animals have mentioned that the sole purpose for humans being taller than animals was simply that God made the food intended for humans in a tree where on the contrary the meals for the animals were on the ground. This argument made me think of Darwin’s theory of evolution and biodiversity in the sense that every kind of animal is different in some way depending on what they eat, where they live, and how they nurture. I believe this argument to be flawed because the humans nor the animals have seen God in person to know why he created things the way they are. The argument of evolution could have been mentioned in this debate in order to provide concrete evidence.

Another irrational argument was provided by the rabbit. There was tension throughout this debate because of the attack towards the horses. Humans have degraded the animals yet, they appraised the horse for being so majestic and perfect in every aspect. “In their handsome form and fine proportions… They have keen senses…” (122). These are marks of appraisal and approval made by humans. However, the rabbit contradicts this statement by saying how horses lack insight, “He’s just like a sword in this way, without sense, sentience, or spirit…” (123). The animals were seen to be protecting each other by stating how they were each created differently to serve a certain role yet, the rabbit throws this argument away. I believe this to also be a reason for which the horses himself did not have a say in the arguments between humans and rabbits because he has been domesticated to a point where they are slaves to mankind, similarly to the fables provided by Aesop and dogs.

The ways each side presented their arguments could have been improved in various ways. But the key factor that caused the biggest hole in the arguments were the horses. The humans stating that animals are imperfect to nature yet, appraising the horses and saying they are perfect. The animals giving the presentation that animals have been created a certain way that God intended yet the rabbit degrades the horses by calling them ignorant.