Scribd
Upload
16 views1 page

Satirical Argument for Cannibalism

Ruth Benedict's article 'The Uses of Cannibalism' presents a satirical argument that cannibalism could serve as a remedy for human aggression and prevent war. While her use of sarcasm effectively critiques the nature of violence, it risks being misinterpreted by readers who may not recognize her intent. The article highlights a fallacy in equating cannibalism with war, suggesting that war is often a necessary response to oppression rather than merely an outlet for aggression.

Uploaded by

aaronfrede
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
16 views1 page

Satirical Argument for Cannibalism

Ruth Benedict's article 'The Uses of Cannibalism' presents a satirical argument that cannibalism could serve as a remedy for human aggression and prevent war. While her use of sarcasm effectively critiques the nature of violence, it risks being misinterpreted by readers who may not recognize her intent. The article highlights a fallacy in equating cannibalism with war, suggesting that war is often a necessary response to oppression rather than merely an outlet for aggression.

Uploaded by

aaronfrede
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Reading Analysis Three: The Uses of Cannibalism

In her article “The Uses of Cannibalism,” Ruth Benedict argues for using cannibalism as
a solution to relieve the human desire for war and violence. In the introduction of the satirical
argument, Benedict refers to cannibalism as a “sovereign remedy” to which “all the noblest of
emotions have been found . . . compatible . . . [and] reinforced” (185). Benedict’s argument for
the use of cannibalism is shaped around its benefit in preventing mass violence through
satisfying the “excitement of ultimate aggression” (186). She argues that cannibalism should be
practiced so society can release aggression while avoiding the devastations of war. Although
entirely satirical, her argument flows nicely with balanced usage of examples, reasoning, and
argumentative statements. Her sarcasm could be problematic for some readers if they fail to
understand that she is not seriously advocating for cannibalism and are repulsed by the
suggestion, however readers that pick up on this should be shocked by the comparison and so
this strategy will be effective in making war seem as repulsive as cannibalism. A fallacy in
Benedict's argument is when she implies that the use of cannibalism can be a substitute for
modern war. Most often, war is not simply an outlet for aggression, but often an exercise in
aiding oppressed societies. The difference is that to replace war with cannibalism would imply
that war is a choice. When this fallacy is overlooked, the argument for cannibalism, though
outlandish, provokes somber reflection on the necessity of war.

You might also like