The word “moral” is elusive, so it’s hard to say exactly something moral or immoral. For example, in Greek era, anatomical dissection was morally wrong. The person who wants to study the inside of human body had to dissect dogs instead. Obviously now, to cut up a dead person for medical study is moral and very important to anatomical study. I think moral and immoral could depend on the definition each person and society gives.
Is eating meat morally wrong? This question arose on the account that a huge number of animals are killed for meal such as fishes, pigs, cows or turkeys as mentioned by Law in “Carving the Roast Beast”.
Before I answer that question, I would like to define the meaning of immoral when it comes to slaughter. My idea is killing animals just for fun is absolutely morally wrong. As a result, my answer is slaughter for human’s meal can be moral because it’s necessary in order for us to live, so I disagree with Law. Even though, some people may argue that we have many kinds of food such as soybean which can replace meat, we can’t deny that the quality of protein from meat is better because protein form meat completely gives out a lot of necessary amino acid, while other sources such as soy bean are deficient in protein. In addition, there is more availability for meat, in critical situation, especially, if you are lost in a jungle and run out of food which you have prepared, how can you survive? You can find fish or birds easier than soy bean, can’t you?
To make his idea right, I think Law will argue by giving reasons how morally wrong eating meat is in the next 25 pages of “Carving the Roast Beast”. He may talk about perspectives of religious or health science circle to support his point. For example, slaughter breaks religion’s principles such as in the first of the five precepts of Buddhism, which is to abstain from killing animals or human. For health science, he may support by giving information about vegetarians who might be more healthy and try to persuade readers to be vegetarians as well.
Sunday, 9 November 2008
4 comments:
Before you click the blue "Publish" button for your first comment on a post, check ✔ the "Notify me" box. You want to know when your classmates contribute to a discussion you have joined.
A thoughtful response should normally mean writing for five to ten minutes. After you state your main idea, some details, explanation, examples or other follow up will help your readers.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think her idea in Am's first paragraph here is brilliant.
ReplyDeleteAnd we will be coming back to that this week in Quest.
And in her last paragraph she raises a couple of other promising points to consider. I especially liked her reference to the first precept of Buddhism, which it seems to me the great majority of Thai Buddhists do not try to follow very seriously. It would seem that the precept does support the main idea of Law's dialogue.
I dont't think that people because they want to have a good health, but may be it is about religion. Some people pity the animals that die because it has to be our food. For example, friend of mind is vegitarian because she love an animals and she feel sad everytime she eat meat. Although I tried to told her that meat is our food and it is important for our body. My friend knew about it, but she still feel sad, for this reason my friend became vegetirian.
ReplyDeleteAom,
ReplyDeleteIs your friend unhealthy?
I agree with Am.
ReplyDeleteI think so, too.
If people killing animals just for fun is absolutely morally wrong, however people killing animals for meal can be moral.
I think Am's post is best because more clear opinion.