As for Frederic King, to convince us of the benefits of experimental research on animals, he also chooses to try to appeal to our “soft spot,” although to a lesser extent. When specifying the advantages it presents for human beings, he exhaustively lists the people in our society who are in dire need of help, vulnerable people, people we want to help, whom we sympathize it, that we relate to easily: “In the case of paralyzed patients, it [enables] those who could otherwise have to spend their lives lying down to sit upright.” He also mentions the case of scoliosis, where he doesn’t miss to remind us the “disabling and disfiguring curvature of the spine” associated with the disease, and children, who according to King, have benefited from the “advances in pediatric ophthalmology that can prevent irreversible brain damage.” He also attempts to downplay the gravity of the “occasional errors” that occur in laboratories, by relating to the reader’s own errors in “the rearing of the children, [and] the practicing of a trade or profession] and usually consequent acceptance and understanding of others’ errors. Still, combined with his methodical and constant, contemptuous depreciation of the opponent’s arguments, he ends up distancing himself from the reader, and appears as a cold, non-genuine, heartless person.
Second of all, a contrasting element in the comparison of these two pieces, is the manner in which Suzuki and King weigh their arguments, by presenting, or not, the other side’s viewpoint. As far as Mr Suzuki’s concerned, he does not even begin to fully examine the flip side of the coin with us. He barely brings up the beneficial aspects of animal experimentation. However, he uses what can turn out to be, in some cases, an effective argumentative technique. In one of his anecdotes, he tells us about the time he chased a squirrel until it had nowhere to go. The squirrel started “crying,” and that is when Mr Suzuki realized the effect his actions had on that squirrel. By sharing this story, he makes the point that he was standing on the other side once upon a time, the “dark side,” but has come to his senses by opening his eyes to the reality that animals do feel pain and are aware of the dangers brewing around them and the pain inflicted upon them. Thus, he does not feel that he needs to present the ‘enemy’s’ arguments since he, too, has been on their side of the road and now has a clear and unbiased view as to what’s wrong and what’s right. Even though he decides to go through his exposé without taking into consideration all of the pros and cons of the question, he does so without the least bit sign of arrogance and guile. Frederick King, on his side, does present us with the opposing view. However, he does so with a very precise goal, and that is to completely undermine and destroy their opinions and arguments. Right off the bat, he lists every possible point animal-rights movements might make:
Animals are given intense, repeated electric shocks until they lose the ability even to scream; animals are deprived of food and water and allowed to suffer and die from hunger and thirst; animals are put in isolation until they are driven insane or die from despair and terror; animals are subjected to crushing forces that smash their bones and rupture their internal organs; the limbs of animals are mutilated or amputated to produce behavioural changes; animals are the victims of extreme pain and stress, inflicted out of idle curiosity, in nightmarish experiments designed to make healthy animals psychotic.
He uses such strong and vivid images- almost to the point of exaggeration- that those lines end up coming off as morbid sarcasm. The author doesn’t allot much credibility to these accusations, no matter what the impression is he is trying to establish; his real intentions, in exposing them, uninterruptedly, is to drain these arguments of any influence and impact they might have, and to better scoff at them.
King also repeatedly and systematically seeks to weaken not only the animal-rights movement’s arguments, but the activists themselves, personally. He categorizes them into 2 groups: the “moderates” and the “extremists.” On that point, he is inflexible. You are either with him or against him. In his mind, extremists have no say or weight, whatsoever, in this debate: “It is to this group (the moderates) that scientists and scientific organizations have the responsibility to explain what they do.” He simply discards the “extremists” out of the equation, and even looks to be trying to bring discord and clashing dissension into the opposing camp.
Finally, both authors discuss the question of humans’ rights over animals. David Suzuki questions humanity’s right to utilize animals to their own and only ends: “Underlying the “animal rights” movement is the troubling question of where we fit in the rest of the natural world.” Throughout his essay, he tries to establish the link between us humans, and animals. He alludes, as a reference, to the case of gorillas and chimpanzees, which share 99% of our genes” and “are our closest relatives.” He also “subliminally” tries to emphasize this point, by italicizing certain words, which have, for the most part, a connection between them. “Models,” “similarity,” “biological”: they all suggest the inevitable comparisons and similarities pro-animal rights factions have been trying to ascertain between animals and humans. Like I said earlier, Suzuki believes we should reconsider “where we fit in the rest of the natural world.” We do not live in this world alone, and there are other beings that live and feel just like us, and so we do not have any predetermined rights on them, contrary to what people like Frederic A. King says.
Frederic King’s view on the subject is completely at the other end of the spectrum. Although he believes “that we hold a moral stewardship for animals and that we are obliged to treat them with humane compassion and concern for their sentience,” he clearly does not feel animals should be held at the same level as humans: “…animals lack those characteristics that would allow them to share in the rights we grant to humans.” To support and further reinforce his point, he cleverly brings in ethicist Arthur Kaplan’s opinion into the debate, he who believes in the same concept and principles of human rights as King. Since an ethicist is someone who specializes in “determining” what is right from wrong, how can he possibly be wrong, right?
All in all, I think it is important to remember that these two essays were not written as part of a personal confrontational debate between the two men. It was simply two people, with two distinct backgrounds as far as their life experiences and career paths are concerned, presenting their ideas and philosophies on similar subjects. Obviously, Mr Suzuki decided to go a more friendlier and basic approach than that of Mr King, who appeared to be stating the incontestable superiority of the human race. Although, textually, Mr King appeared to be more flexible on his views than Mr Suzuki, we come to the conclusion that the reality is not what it seems to be. Frederic King’s essay is full of deceitful wiles, whereas David Suzuki is more straightforward and transparent. People whom, until now, have “trusted the system” in their belief that animals are not being used, in the majority of cases, as worthless and expandable guinea pigs, should reconsider their opinion, because Mr King seemed to be unabashedly hiding behind his condescendence.