Peter Disagrees with Stephen Law on Eating Meat

My first title for this post was "Why Peter disagrees with Stephen Law," but I wasn't happy with that because I don't actually want to tell you my reasons yet. The current title is the third one I thought of. I think it's a good title because it includes my name, it includes what I'm responding to, and it tells you my main idea about it.

But this is not an academic writing, so I think it's OK not to present my supporting reasons. In his essay, Law makes a very strong argument to support his main idea, that it is morally wrong to eat meat (2003). If you disagree with him, then you need a strong reason to support your idea that Law is wrong. I'll tell you mine later. I want to see what your ideas are first.

In the last blog, when we just shared ideas responding to the introduction, one argument that got a lot of attention, including the citation of a some sources, was that it's acceptable to eat meat because we need it to be healthy. As you will have realised when you read pages 138 - 9, Law discusses this idea, and concludes that it is wrong: we do not need to eat meat to be healthy, so it cannot be morally right to eat meat because we need it: we don't.

So, if you disagree with Law, what's your reason? Where is Law wrong?

If you do agree with him, how do you feel about that? Are going to change your eating habits?

Respond to the ideas in Law's essay in a new post of your own.

__________

References

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