Over the past week, we looked more closely at a couple of the most popular reasons that people have for disagreeing with Stephen Law's idea that it is morally wrong to eat meat.
First, there was the very popular argument that we need meat to be healthy and that it is therefore morally OK to eat it. When we looked more carefully at the facts about our need for protein, it turns out that this common belief is just wrong. Human beings do not need to eat meat, and in fact it appears to be healthier to get our protein needs from non-meat sources.
Next, we looked at the idea that it's OK to eat meat because that is natural for human beings. This depends on the general premiss that if something is natural, then it is morally acceptable to do that something. Unfortunately, this would mean that all of those other natural human acts like rape, murder, stealing and so on were also morally OK, and that just doesn't sound right, so being natural is probably not a very good argument to support a disagreement with Law's thesis.
If you're still one of the majority who do think that it's OK to eat meat, what is your reason?
Before you post, I suggest you check to see if Law has already discussed your argument against him.
Then post your ideas for us to argue about.
It might help if you read Law's essay again. As you read it, look for places where you think Law makes a mistake. When you find something that you think is wrong, why do you think that Law is wrong? What is the right idea that opposes Law's wrong idea?
ReplyDeleteAs I've already said, I don't agree with Law: I think it is morally acceptable to eat meat.
There are two places in his essay where I think that Law makes a serious mistake. They seem to me to be related.
Both are at the beginning of Law's essay.
ReplyDelete