Flawed Argument of the Pig

Much like in the title of the book, The Case of the Animals versus Man, men and animals debate over the enslavement of animals by humans and how that is not fair to said animals. Throughout the book, both parties are equally given the opportunity to argue their case and also appeal themselves to the judge. The animals tend to talk about the negative things that the humans have done to them such as making them participate in forced labor and putting them through harsh conditions. While stating their case they call different animals and each of them talks about their experience. While most of them seem to not sympathize or even forgive the humans the pig does. The pig talks about how some humans are evil towards them, but others are not. He states, “They loathe the sight of us and find our smell revolting and our meat disgusting. They hate even to say our name. But Romans eat our meat with gusto in their sacrifices and think it makes them blessed before God” (120). This is a flawed statement for one major reason, it doesn’t agree with the overall theme. Through what we’ve read so far we’ve seen men painted as unfair people that think of themselves as superiors, even though it is stated that all were created equally. Here we see that the pig has in part strayed from what all the animals are arguing for. He states that some humans don’t kill them for their food and their hatred makes them stay away from them, meaning they are not enslaved like the other animals. He flaws the animal’s argument, introducing this side of humans that don’t kill or enslave animals for pleasure, on the contrary, they leave them be. This seems to help the case of the humans as the ass then turns to rabbit to encourage them to state their case and in turn get pity from the king. He says, “Set your complaint before the King. Perhaps he will look into our case in his mercy, take pity on us, and set us free” (121). The ass seems to catch that the pig is not helping their case and so he turns to other animals to help out in their defense.

-Janet Reyes

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

Animal Inconsistency: The Pig’s Point of View

In the book “The Case of the Animals versus Man” we see the animals argue against the injustice they faced at the hands of man. After hearing the stories of man’s harsh treatment towards the animals they enslaved, the pig is asked to give his statement. However, the pig is unsure as to how man has done harm against him. On one hand he is seen as dirty and disgusting by some, such as Muslims and Jewish humans, and is left alone. On the other hand, some humans praise the pig for being so useful in their line of work, such as shoemakers and doctors. The pig states, “We don’t know whom to thank and against whom to complain of injustice” (121). The pig does not understand that he is still being mistreated by man, just in different ways. The duality of man’s opinion towards the pig confuses him and shows the audience that he doesn’t really understand the whole point of this case. The animals’ argument begins to slightly fall apart at this moment. How can they win their case if not all their members agree with their point? The pig’s uncertainty also provides evidence to man’s side of the argument. How can all of mankind be unjust if not all of the animals see it that way?

– Dafne Juarez-Gutierrez

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