Under these considerations the pertinent question is not “Does hunger affect them any less?
” as Rachels asks, but “Can I feel their hunger like I feel my own hunger?
” or “Would my own benefit from my money be more greatly appreciated by me than their benefit would be?
” All of which is to say that there do seem to be general differences that could justify differences in treatment.
An example of this would be when he talks about the way he loses focus in a text and that he feels he is “dragging his wayward brain back” to whatever he was reading.
Carr uses this metaphor, giving an action to an object, to show the reader exactly the difficulty he has staying focused on a reading and how he has to almost ‘physically’ bring his mind back to the text. Another example of this strategy of pathos would be how he says that he “once was a scuba diver in the sea of words.Since Rachels also considers Randian Ethical Egoism specifically (which he describes as mischaracterizing altruism as something that necessarily puts the interests of others above one’s own), and given the current political climate of this country (where some equate Randian ethics with a moral mandate for a market without government regulation and an end to government subsidies), I wondered what Rachels’ argument would have to say about living in (and perhaps being complicit in) a capitalist country that necessarily creates and perpetuates inequality, which he might call “unacceptably arbitrary.” Would such an economic system necessarily be immoral in his view, rather than just amoral, as it’s often described?I’m really not entirely sure if Rachels’ moral doctrine of equality conflicts with economic doctrines – I want to hear what other people think.Although this seems like a strong strategy to relate to a different age based audience, it could also conflict with others that already have a set perceived notion about these effects.In another part of the article he contradicts himself by using the information from James Olds, a professor of neuroscience, when he states that the human mind is very malleable and has the ability to reprogram itself.Carr uses personal experience, vivid imagery, and analysis backed by research to hook the viewer in and persuade them that in today’s society, the internet is causing mainly problems.Although Carr has his own personal experiences with the negative effects of the web, he also did his research on how other writers had agreed with him on the subject to help support his strategies of logos.Every day there is some new technological advancement making its way into the world in an attempt to make life easier for people. ”, author Nicholas Carr explains his thoughts on how he believes the internet is running the risk of making people full of artificial knowledge.Carr begins by explaining how he feels that the web is causing his focus issues, how he can no longer be completely immersed in a book, and the reason why he gets fidgety while reading.I believe that the use of pathos, when done correctly, can be very moving and persuasive.Carr used the right language to pull the reader in and to show how he was feeling without being too over the top, and was able to persuade his reader to the effects of the web in today’s society.