Stephen Law v. Peter Singer: The Morality of Meat, Part I

In his dialogue "Carving the Roast Beast", the philosopher Stephen Law both presents strong arguments to support his claim that eating meat is immoral and effectively addresses the strongest opposing arguments to his thesis (Law, 2003). There is, however, a weakness at the beginning of his dialogue which he does not address and which refutes Law's main idea. Because of relevant differences between most humans and the non-humans that we normally eat, it is morally acceptable to kill and eat animals, although the reasons that support that have further consequences that Law does briefly touch on.

First, Law is right to point out that religious teachings are not relevant. Religions are not, and cannot be, a reliable guide to what is moral. As Law notes, the Christian bible clearly endorses eating meat, but it also endorses slavery and other clearly immoral behaviour. Buddhism's first precept does suggest that Buddhists today should not normally eat meat, but that does not mean it is immoral, just that Buddhists break their first precept if they eat meat. Law is right to repeat the point made by Plato more than 2,000 years ago in the Euthyphro, also a dialogue, that the teachings of religions and gods do not make things moral or immoral, but that such teachings require solid reasons to support them (Law, 2003, Appeals to the Bible sect., p. 136-7; Plato, trans. 1997).

So, why is Law wrong about the morality of eating meat? In the section titled "The Mentally Impaired", Law includes a long quotation from the philosopher Peter Singer, whose argument appears to support Law's answer to the argument presented by Mr. Wilson that the mental and other differences between humans and the animals that they eat is what makes it morally acceptable to enjoy eating them (2003, p. 128 - 130). However, in Animal Liberation, Singer actually uses the example Law quotes as part of a larger argument that is very different to Law's (2002, p.1 - 23). Singer was the first major philosopher to make a powerful argument that presents and argues against speciesism, which Law explains at the beginning of his dialogue; however, Singer acknowledges that there can be, that there must be, very real differences between humans and other animals, and that those differences are both relevant to, and do in fact justify, treating human animals differently to non-human animals, even though it is the relevant differences that justify the different treatment, not the mere fact of being a human or a non-human animal. That is, Singer would object right at the start of Law's dialogue, where Gemma's parents accept that there are no relevant differences between the numerous different types of animals: humans, apes, pigs, dogs, cows, chickens, and so on. There clearly are very substantial differences, and some of those differences are the kind that do justify different treatment of and moral distinctions amongst the various types of animal that inhabit the Earth. As Mr Wilson tells us: "turkeys are, frankly, pretty dim," whereas human beings are "highly intelligent creature[s]" with "a highly sophisticated range of emotions" (Law, 2003, p. 128). Gemma does not deny these facts about humans and turkeys, but instead answers her father's opposing argument with Singer's idea in the long quotation on page 130. It's a good answer, but not good enough.

to be continued... Can you guess where this argument might be going? Why do I think most people might dislike this answer to Law even more than they dislike Law's ideas?

Continued at "Law v. Singer: The Morality of Meat, Part II" (2008, December 20), above.

____________

References

Law, S. (2003). Carving the roast beast. In The Xmas Files (pp.124 - 140). London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson

Plato. Euthyphro. Gallop, D. (trans., 1997). In Plato: Defence of Socrates, Euthyphro, Crito (p. 1 - 23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Singer, P. (2002). Animal Liberation. New York: ECCO.