Although this is not strictly an academic writing exercise, it is a bit more serious than the last post here, where your only concern was to put your initial ideas into sentences as preparation for reading Law's essay. You will probably want to spend at least some time on the pre-writing steps of the writing process before you start putting your ideas about the strengths and weaknesses of Law's arguments down in sentences for your classmates to support or attack. If you agree with Law, you will need to be able to defend him against your classmates opposing ideas. And if you disagree with him, you want to present a strong argument showing where he is wrong or what he fails to cover in his essay.
This is your opportunity to either show us why it's OK to keep eating kai yang and hamburgers, or why we should stop indulging immoral lusts for such tasty treats.
And you will want to keep track of the arguments, so turn on "Subscribe by email" before you post your first comment.
__________
References
Almost 24 hours after I put up the poll on whether Law is right or wrong, the votes so far have surprised me a little - I thought more people would still be disagreeing with him, but in fact the majority so far now agrees with Law that it is immoral to eat meat.
ReplyDeleteBut perhaps Law's supporters were just got in first.
And as I was writing my last comment, someone else voted against Law, so now the results are equal.
ReplyDeleteSo, what are your reasons for saying that Law is either right or wrong? If you say someone is wrong, it is especially important to present a solid reason - just as we expect a good supporting reason in class when you disagree with a classmate's idea.
After I finish reading “Craving the Roast Beast”, I want to change my idea. I agree with Law. Eating meat is morally wrong because the creature is treated terribly. They have no place to walk around and no natural food for them to eat. When I think about the word “Farm”, it shows the bad representation of narrow place, cruel treatment and unhappiness feeling of those animals. The farm owner treats their products without moral. For example, geese are put in the narrow cage and are fed as much as possible to grow their livers. Human kill and get their livers with the good benefits. Maybe the farm owners forget that Geese also have feeling. They don’t want to eat too much. They don’t want human to feed them in the cruelty way. However they can’t communicate because they are in the different species with us. The animals always produce some toxic chemical inside their body automatically when they feel very stressful or fearful before slaughtering. This cause the cancer disease spread to the human. Law’s idea does supports that animals is a living thing capable of enjoying life even they’re not smart, can’t talk and smile but they have the right to chose that I prefer to die or live happily. I myself saw cows had tear came out when it was drag out from the farm to kill. I heard pigs kept moaning when they were put in the back of the truck without mercy. They called my tear up. I keep telling myself that if there is a chance for me to become a vegetarian. I know that it might take time for me to stop eating meat. Also same as all creatures might need longer period of time to be well evolve as smart as human some day in the future. However we won’t be giving up. To sum up, I definitely agree with Law’s idea.
ReplyDeleteWhen i finish Law's essay, I think his supporting ideas that he gives in the article is very interesting but i still disagree with him. Because meat is a basic food for human, we need to eat meat for strong body and energy to do activity. Refer to The Mentally Impaired in page 129 Gemma argument with her family,she gives example about some babies who born with brain-damaged. they cannot talk and think, just like turkey or another animal.So, Gemma said it's OK to eat babies,as we eat turkey.In my opinion, this argument is a weakness for Law's reason about morally wrong to eating meat. because for me human is always human, i think is very weird if we can eat babies that they are disabled.Another reason is if we do not eat meat can be cause of problems in ecosystem.(food chain)
ReplyDeleteWell, I disagree with Law's idea that eating meat is morally wrong because as science researches show meat has the highest levels of protein and minerals of all food. In addition, human have to eat meat for healing their muscles, even if countless can stay healthy without eating meat like saint or vegetarian. Following reason is that we are different from other species; we are intelligent, civilization, responsibility and so forth. Animals are killed for our living, it does not for entertainment. In the text Gemma should not compare us with animals. Then people should have right to eat meat without felling guilty. However, I empathize with those who reduce and reject meat consumption for environmental and ethical concerns. To sum up, everything exactly depends on faith in individual.
ReplyDeleteI'm Buddhist.Because Buddhists believe that animal slaugher is morally wrong, I agree with Law's idea. Even though you don't kill those animals yourselves, you are the people who support animal slaugher by eatting meat. If we didn't eat meat, the animals would not be killed. Plants is not animals. They don't have complex organs such as heart, liver,and lung. Plants also can't move whereas animals can move. It's ok to eat plant because we don't break our Buddhists forbidden rule(Don't kill animals).
ReplyDeleteHappily this is a personal decision what depend only your judgment about what is morally or immorally. In my opinion, meat is an important food and excellent fount of energy and minerals for our health. Also eat meat is part of our alimentary chain. Moreover, eat mead don’t are a morally problem because, stop eating meat don’t finish the mass slaughter. I give reason for my idea: For the first reason, today there are a lot of products in the market that they include dead animals. Second, a good part of the clothing industry depends on animals. Thirdly, photographic films and of movies they are covered with a solitary jelly of the bovine feet. In addition, until the chewing gum they count solitary collagen of the skin of animals. Consequently, eat meat don’t is an immorally.
ReplyDeleteEven though, Law has a lot of supports that why we shoudn't eat meat but I still believe that eating meat is not totally wrong. For example, Gamma said that animal have to eat each other to survive (page 140) but I believe that human also need food for their alive too. Surely, people can eat vegetable for survival but what do you think if a person can not eat vegetable because of his/her illness so should he/she wait until they die? I don't think so maybe they need some meat for their life too. Furturemore, in the passage said that why we don't eat children who are not very bright (page 129) so is it possible to eat human? Maybe someone can eat it but they must be crazy person. In conclusion, I strongly disagree with Law's idea.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with Stephen Law's idea.
ReplyDeleteIf Stephen Law's idea is correct, it would be morrally wrong to eat vegetable and fruit because all the reasons that law has given us to prove why it is morrally wrong to eat meat.for example, it is morally wrong to cut short of an animal's life for eating it and it is morally wrong to cut short of a vegetable's life for eating it.
If we don't eat meat, vegetable and fruit, our life would be cut short. However, we can't not cut short ourself life for moral reason. In another word, It is morally wrong to keep law's idea.
That's why Law's idea is wrong.
I don't agree with Stephen Law's idea.
ReplyDeleteIf Stephen Law's idea is correct, it would be morally wrong to eat vegetable and fruit because all the reasons that law has given us to prove why it is morally wrong to eat meat. For example, it is morally wrong to cut short of an animal's life for eating it and it is morally wrong to cut short of a vegetable's life for eating it.
If we don't eat meat, vegetable and fruit, our life would be cut short. However, we cannot cut short ourselves life for moral reason. In another word, it is morally wrong to keep law's idea.
That's why Law's idea is wrong.
Do you thing that to be a carnivore is wrong? and to be a vegetarian is right?. According with law eating meat is morally wrong, Yet now I finished read the Law essay and my opnion continues to be the same. Eating meat is morally acceptable. It is difficult to contradict his point but I argue 4 points:
ReplyDeleteFirst, nature almost alll animal life is divided into predators and prey animals. this last sort are usually herbivores. Herbivores have higly developed digestion, that allows them to eat only vegetables.
Second, Science says huumans require a balanced diet to live healthy lives. In other words we need proteins, carbohidrates and fiber. Our diet should include items from all major food groups, meats, vegetables, grains and sugar.
Third, everything eating by all animals was alive. The only thing is not alive is rocks and nothing eat rocks.
Finally, We need to be very sure the process that meat of vegetables arrive our table. In other words We must eat only cattle, that were slaughtered under a good proceess, in other means where the animals did not suffer. Also If we eat vegetables we need to take care that they were grown without pesticide and other chemical. In sort Law arguments are interesting but his logic is wrong, if you follow his logic to the end we can not eat anything except rocks. Everything in the earth is part of the chain of life, consequently wheter the people are carnivores or vegetarians, they are moraly right.
Tina (May 2, 2011 10:25 PM) and Susana (May 2, 2011 11:26 PM),
ReplyDeleteI think that Pree (May 2, 2011 8:35 P) has answered your opposing argument that his reasons would mean we could not eat anything at all by explaining why Law does not think his arguments apply equally to plants and other non-animal living things.
What do you think? Is Pree right or wrong?
(Anyone is welcome to answer.)
Pree also makes a point that contradicts one of Thip's idea in "Carving the Roast Beast" (2011, May 2). So, again, who do you think is right?
Neiva's main idea (May 2, 2011 8:53 PM) is probably a common one, with serious consequences for all of our moral beliefs. What do you think about her idea that it's just a personal decision?
These are just a few of your ideas so far that have have struck me as worth further responses - and it is important to respond to your classmates' ideas, exactly the way we do in our class discussions. The major advantage of putting your ideas into writing is that unlike a verbal discussion, you have more time to think, and to present support for your ideas, whether you are agreeing of disagreeing, which is why academics normally present their ideas in writing.
The discussion is going very well. I'm looking forward to tomorrow's instalments.
I disagree with Law. It is not morally wrong to eat meat. Meat is a some king of food for humen. Gemma reason is not stong to persuade me to belive that eating meat is morally wrong. In my view, spmw king of animal can be a food such as pig, cow, chicken and turkey. But some king of animal could not be a food for example monkey, rabbit or dog. We need to eat meat because it give a protien for your health and it is more delicious than protien from vegetable. Almost meat is from a farm where There are a standard for take care it. It do not have a family. It do not have a relationship together so it will be a food in future. Finally, eating meat is not morally wrong.
ReplyDeletePree:
ReplyDeleteWhat deference between vegetable and meat? First, Can you eat a disability who don't have some organs? It's definately wrong. why can you eat plants just because it don't have some organs that are possessed by human and animals? Futhermore, vegetable has complex organs too, and some of them we don't have, either do animals. it's not a reason to eat plants morally.
Second, new born baby can not move because they don't have muscles and some of old person cannot move for some illness. Could you accept to eat them? you cann't. However, plants have movement too, otherwise how can plants grown up.
Third, Your sounds just like what law disagree with in that article: "it says so in the Bible". It is not a reason to persuade others, because if you learn that rules very carefully, you will find some rules is just for history. For example, buddhist cannot get marry. How can you sure eating vegetable is not just for the passed days. I insist my idea. Could you give me more suporting here.
After read all the opinions in this question, I continuo with my opinion. Stop eat meat don’t resolve the situation of animal’s life. Maybe, we need acquire knowledge about the preservation of the species of the natures don’t only the animals but also the plants. I agree when Pree spoke about her religion. This is what she believes, I don’t accept this idea for me but I respect the religious rule, thought the vegetable have life also and many others things we use and eat every day, are make from parts of animal.
ReplyDeleteI disagree the Art’s opinion about the place of animals in the farms. I think this doesn’t is the reason for we eat or not meat!
To Pree
ReplyDeleteI am Buddhism too, but I disagree with you and Law's idea because the monk and the priest are eat meatand they sometime kill some insects. For example ants amd mosquitoes.The Buddhist is not forbidden to eat meat because it is a human food, and I belived that it is acircle of life. If you make a seriou mistake in afterlife when they gave birth in this life they may be an aniamls because the God will punish them, this is belived of God. Now, the meats came from Farms ; produce to sell human and become a big companies and there are listed in stock market. In addition, ther is no religions allowing to kill animals.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Stephen law, I ask myself many time. Should I even eat meat? This is a sensitive topic but I still believe that eating meat is not morally wrong and it is normal since we are the most inteligent specie alive. There are many reason for me why it is morally acceptable to eat meat by following.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, We are designed to eat meat as justification on page 138. Humans have their teeth shaped in such a way as to rip of stuff like meat. If we look any plant-eating animal, such as the buffolo, they don't have them. It has straight flat teeth and it is different from lions that have sharp kinfe-like teeth like we do. Therefore, there's nothing wrong to it because nature created the human to eat meat likes some species of animals.
Moreover, take to comparison, if lion eats human and when humans are the victims, is it morally wrong?
Also, as Gemma said, eating meat is cruelty and suffering of the animals. On the other hand, why we are able to accept carnivore can eat other animals and regardless morality for this case. If eating allows for survival, also eating meat can be acceptable.
Finally, refer to Gemma's reason why not kill some babies are born that are severely brain-damanged as Page 129. As she said, "these babies may be human, but thery are no smarter than turkeys. So your own reasoning, it should be morally acceptable to kill and eat them" This is a weak argument. In fact, killing people is wrong both in laws and ethical. Besides, it is unfair for babies who can't appeal for their life, so for example it is very hard to comply with this reason. To sum up, although some people agree with this law, I think eating meat is not morally wrong.
To Pree,
ReplyDeleteI'm a Buddhist too and i know that in our religion teaching about kill animal as a sin. But i disagree with you, because i think human must eat meat to survive,not for fun. Therefore,it will match with teaching of the Buddha that keep the life survive is the most important. For this reason, i think eating meat is not morally wrong and not conflict with teaching of the Buddhism.
I would like to show law's supporting here to support my idea: eat vegetables is morally wrong too.
ReplyDelete1. It is wrong to kill and eat vegetable, no matter what sort of life it had, because you cut short its life.
2. As no difference between vegetable and human, it is a kind of prejudice to treat them so differently.
3. What deference between ‘human vegetable’ and vegetables in Peter Singer’s case is same the deference between ‘human vegetable’ and animals that is why It is speciesism to accept eating vegetable.
4. It is ridiculous to eat vegetable because it is morally wrong to accept for one race to kill and eat the other.
5. Why do we eat meat and vegetable is morally wrong has the same reason that is Roger Scruton’s idea is wrong.
6. People cannot eat animal, even though you can find moral knowledge from Bible to allow you eating meat, and you cannot eat vegetable with the same reason.
7. There are a lot of people living healthy in the world without vegetable. In another word, we don’t need to eat vegetable.
8. Eating vegetable is naturalness, but some of naturalness is morally wrong.
9. We don’t have the right to justify our killing and eating vegetable, even though it is planted by human, because you cannot eat a mentally impaired human who is bred by you.
10. We are people with moral sense, and people can survive without vegetable because we can eat leaves.
I use the same supporting with law’s here. If Law's idea is correct, it would be morally wrong to eat vegetable, furthermore to eat fruit. If we don't eat meat, vegetable and fruit, our life would be cut short. However, we cannot cut short ourselves life for moral reason. In another word, it is morally wrong to keep law's idea.
That's why Law's idea is wrong.
Wowww Tina. You have a lot supporting ideas and I like them.
ReplyDeletePree. Do you want to change your mind? ^O^
The ideas here both for and against Law are exactly what we want: they are carefully reading Law to show where he is either right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteAs it's written Tina's clear and well stated points against Law need a solid reply from those who disagree her and think that Law is right.
What is Tina's most important supporting reason for her main idea that Law is wrong? And how can Law or his supporters answer that reason?
I think Pree has the right sort of ideas to answer Tina's objections to Law, but they perhaps need to be developed and clarified a little to make them strong enough.
I also think that Pree is right about Buddhism - although most Thai Buddhists think it's OK to eat meat, Buddhists elsewhere often think that the First Precept of Buddhism means that Buddhists should not normally eat meat ("Buddhist Vegetarianism", 2011), which seems to me the correct understanding of what Buddha meant in the precept "Do not kill".
This morning we looked at Law, but only his language as an example to help us better understand the meaning of the very important academic word cite; we did not discuss his ideas today. Tomorrow we will start looking at his ideas, especially the important points he makes in pages 125 to 128. Tina has clearly been looking carefully at that part of the body of Law's essay (also the rest), and the discussion here should be pushing you to clarify your own understanding of exactly what Law is, and perhaps is not, saying in those parts of essay.
References
Buddhist vegetarianism. (2011, March 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:36, May 3, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddhist_vegetarianism&oldid=421099853
A note about deleting comments
ReplyDeleteOnce it's posted, you cannot edit a comment. I sometimes notice a serious mistake after I've posted something. I think the best practice is:
1. If you notice quickly, before any other comment is posted, it's OK to delete a comment and repost a corrected version.
2. If someone else has already posted a later comment, I do not delete teh incorrect one - I add another comment to point out and correct the serious mistake.
When I'm writing quickly, I make typing errors, for example, I often type the word the as "teh". MS Word automatically corrects this for me, but the blog doesn't. I usually don't worry about such minor mistakes. But I do worry about them in more formal writing, such as an essay.
eating meat is not morally wrong in some cases. for example, there is one patient who gets severe desease and the doctor tells him to eat good food with high nutritive. So, good food consist of carbohydrate, protein, mineral and so on. One of them that is very important for his food is protein. As a result, eating meat is one of the process of treatment that he needs to eat meat everyday because meat is a source of high protein.
ReplyDeleteI respect all beliefs and religions, futhermore if I was not catholic maybe I should be Buddhist. Yet I disagree with you. Where in the Buddhisms state, that you can not eat meat?. However the religion adapt to the nowadays, such as Gema's example about the bible says that it is acceptable to have slaves. It does not apply in our days. (pag 137 stephen law).Also about your point, that the plants don't have complex organs as animals, but in my opinion some plants have more complex organs, moreover the animal and the plants, they have same sort reproduction:sexual and asexual reproduction. in addition If your point is not to eat meat because as a result you kill animals. I will like ask you: have you bought some shoes or purses of leather? It is only one example as Neiva say all the items that we use or consume come from something that was alive.Finally I agree with that state if we don't consume the meat it could cause some problem in the ecosystem, as the organic fertlizer that we use to grow up the plants comes from the animals. In summary I continuos with my idea and I state that everything in the earth is part of the chain of life, consequently wheter the people are carnivores or vegetarians, they are moraly right.
ReplyDeleteSorry I miss the name of the person I disagrre is about Pree Wrote
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was not feel well about Peter’s last comment of the Stephen Law’s essay. Maybe I missed the conclusion, despite I want to state more support, so I think “eat meat is right and not morally wrong”. Before I gave some evidences in my comments on the blog at May 2 and May 4 , 2011. And now my new research is the article of the University of California “Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley anthropologist specializing in diet” on the Public Affairs, of University of California. Berkeley (McBroom, 1999).
ReplyDeletePatricia McBroom, reports that the history of mankind who were roaming freely at savannas of Africa about 2 million years ago, used to include meat in their diet to compensate for a big decrease in the quality of plants foods. According to Katharine Milton a physical anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley. “The meat diet” was full of densely-packed nutrients, that provided for human evolution, particularly the growth of the brain, said Milton, an authority on primate diet. (1999, ¶4). Further, the pro mankind without meat he could not has enough energy and nutrient from the plants available in their Africa environment at that time to development into the active, sociable, intelligent creatures they became. Said Milton. Furthermore, her thesis was complementary by other professor as Tim White, Who said: that early human species were butchering and eating animal meat as long ago as 2.5 million years. Milton's article integrates dietary strategy with the evolution of human physiology to argue that meat eating was routine. It is published this month in the journal "Evolutionary Anthropology" (Vol.8, #1). (1999, ¶12). In addition, nowadays an adequate vegetarian’s diet has different food together, as a result on modern scientific knowledge or on traditional food habits, developed over many generations.
The reports gave other examples about the places where people have less access to eat meat. They are increased the risk of malnutrition and they could develop the nutritional disease, beriberi(1). Other illness to confer of malnutrition is pellagra (2),it disease is rare found in the development countries where they have a balance nutrition. Although in the south of United State and some countries in South America where the poor people depends mostly on corn meal develop the nutritional disease pellagra. In addition the people of the southeast China and south of Mexico, who primary source of nutrition is rice, corn, beans and other plats foods are grown less height than the people who has a balance diet with meat and vegetables. For these reason I think “eat meat is right and not morally wrong”
References:
McBroom. P. (1999, Jun 14) Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, the Public Affairs, of University of California. Berkeley. Retrieved Jun 14, 1999 from http://berkeley.edu./news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html
(1) http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=21653
(2) http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4821
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI deleted my comment at May 11, 2011 7:16 AM because I decided shortly after posting it that Susana's excellent comment was worth using for a discussion question, so you don't need my distracting response.
ReplyDeleteDear Susana
ReplyDeleteThank you for useful information.If primitive people hadn't eaten animal meat,human being would have been in lower position in food chain.In other words,we could evolve by eating meat.It seems weird that we argue why it is morally wrong to eat meet.
Susana's argument is that it is morally all right to do something if it is natural or if that behaviour evolved to help humans survive. (Susana, is this a fair statement of your argument? If you think I've misunderstood something important, feel welcome to correct me.)
ReplyDeleteI think that Law effectively addresses this in the section titled "Health and design" (p. 138 - 139).
In this section:
- Does Law admit all of the facts that Susana presents with citations to reliable sources? Does he (Would he) deny any of the facts that Susana has brought to our attention?
- Why does Law think that the opposing argument which Susana clearly presents does not succeed in showing that it is morally OK to eat meat? Susana's argument needs to be answered if Law wants to keep his main idea. How does he answer it?
- What does this tell us about the role of facts as reasons in an argument, at least in this argument? (There is a slight complication because Susana actually presents two related but very different arguments in her comment at May 11, 2011 3:13 AM. In my first paragraph above, I've only stated the one that has not received so much attention here before. Law addresses both in the section referred to.)
I also like Kuriko's response (May 11, 2011 9:28 PM) to Susana where she says that since "we could evolve by eating meat. It seems weird that we argue why it is morally wrong to eat meet".
One reason I use this essay in level 4 classes is that Law presents a very strong case for something that seems to most people to be "obviously" wrong, which can lead to the feeling that the whole argument is bit weird. But does seeming weird mean that something is wrong? Is modern physics all wrong because it's underlying theories seem to very weird? (Relativity is weird enough, but quantum mechanics is seriously weird.)
And because Law presents a very strong case for an idea that many people disagree with, you are forced to think carefully to show why he is wrong. You need a solid reason that Law cannot answer. And if you don't have a solid reason against him, one that he cannot and does not answer, shouldn't you perhaps change your mind and stop eating meat?
I agree with Peter argue, also I think Stephen Law’s essay “Carving the Roast Beast” Laws is wrong.
ReplyDeleteI strengthen my idea that eating meat is morally right, because eating meat helped our ancestors for human evolution. Particularly the growth of the brain. It allowed mankind to evolve into the active, sociable and intelligent creatures they became. Yet everything in human natural behaviour is not justifiable and morally right. For instance, the human developed intelligence so, they must preserve the mankind and it is morally wrong to eat their same species. On the other hand, the human started to find other option to eat, In addition weather our ancestors did not start to eat meat they could not develop agriculture. Moreover, do you know some other animal that creating something to provide food?
Also in the last part of Law’s essay Health and Design, he state: eating meat is natural part of our diet. (Law, ¶10). But as I stated in my first paragraph not everything in human behaviour is justifiable and morally right, as Law’s example about human starting wars to persecuting the people is different for us. I rather say people have different interests. Therefore all the human feelings are natural. However, as envy and hatred, although are natural feelings of the human race, not always are positive as a result they feelings are morally wrong.
.
Furthermore, the nature helps to human to develop intelligence; therefore, we can choose and bred the animal and plants that we want to eat. It is a traditional way of life. In addition as Peter said. No one has even suggested that there is evidence that the cattle were bred specific to prove human meat posses self conscious. In other words, there are two kind of animals: rational and irrational, The human cannot eat human because human are self conscious, so it is morally wrong to eat your own specie, also made wars, because it is against our own nature. Furthermore there are two sorts of animals: animal rational, which developed intelligence and the irrational animal, which are not be able of rationality. Moreover if the argue to say that eating meat is morally wrong is that the animal suffer when is sacrifice or slaughter, because they are in alive, but also the plants are in alive and suffer too, when the animals are eating it. Finally if we can eat anything is in alive, how are the human survive?