Although we are reading the novel as a topic on which to practice academic reading and writing, especially writing, we also want to do some more academic extensive reading. I've already decided on the second essay we will read, which is by an academic working in the field of behavioural economics, which will go well when we start our economics chapter in Quest in a week or so. However, we also want to read something more directly related to the issues that are coming up in our study of cultural anthropology. You've probably already started to make connections between the novel and the ideas in chapter 1 of Quest, but something a bit more academic, with a serious thesis being supported by a well-developed argument, is a good idea, and this is where you get a choice.
Would you like to read about:
- the morality of eating meat, or
- the moral value of religion?
You have three days to vote in the poll on the right, and to support your preferred option in comments below.
You can sign in and change it as many times as you like, but please only vote once in the poll!
To me, I choose the second one "The moral status of religious faith" because it is my personally interesing. Even religious is not quite improper topic to discuss, but I think in academic we have reason to support idea when we discuss, so it might be fine in our class.
ReplyDeleteAlthough neither The Nation nor The Bangkok Post are on my list of suggested reading, I do look at one of them quickly every morning for the local news, and there was a strange report in yesterday's Nation.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Nakhon Phanom (is that really the writer's name? or is it The Nation being being odd?), "almost 2,000 dogs have been saved" from being turned into dinner or other meals (¶ 1, 2011).
But Phanom's report of the events in Nakhon Phanom, not to be confused with the author, whose name of the same name, is a bit confusing. He appears to be saying that it's wrong to eat dogs, but he is very clear that the people taking the truck load of dogs to market were arrested not for planning to sell dogs for food, definitely not for actually cooking or eating any dogs, but for "relocating animals to zones at risk of epidemics without permission". So, presumably, it would be perfectly OK to sell, cook and eat the dogs if the correct permit was issued ensuring that the dogs were healthy. This would probably also please the buyers, who would prefer healthy, plump dogs to skinny diseased dogs. And presumably there is nothing with the dog marketing business if they animals are sold and eaten locally, rather than being transported for consumption in another reason. And yet, Mr. Phanom does seem to think that there is something actually wrong about eating dogs - that they should be saved from that awful fate.
Although a bit confused, and confusing, as articles in The Nation often are, this one did seem relevant to one of the options for the philosophy reading, which is why I've blogged it in this comment. There is also a follow up article in today's Nation, this time by Tawee Aphisakulchat, writing from Nakhon Phanom (2011).
Clearly, cultural notions about the role of dogs in human society differ: should they be pets or dogs? Is it morally right to eat them or should they be from the cooking pots? Why or why not?
References
Aphisakulchat, P. (2011, August 14). Dog traders given bail by Isaan court. The Nation. Retrieved August 14, 2011 from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/08/14/national/Dog-traders-given-bail-by-Isaan-court-30162712.html
Phanom, N. (2011, August 13). Dogs saved from dinner tables, but still in danger. The Nation. Retrieved August 14, 2011 from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/08/13/national/Dogs-saved-from-dinner-tables-but-still-in-danger-30162662.html
So full is it of typing mistakes, I almost deleted my last comment on what we might read next when I got home after class at noon, but then I decided that since it's still clear enough, it was better to leave it as it is.
ReplyDeleteOn Sundays, I teach a class at AUA at 8:00 AM, and finished typing the above comment at 7:13 AM at home - I shouldn't have waited until it was already time to leave my front door (7:00 AM) before starting to write a comment that got more complex than I had expected. It meant writing in an extreme rush with no proofreading at all - with teh result you see above.
But I do think that the articles about eating dogs raise interesting questions.
I vote for the first topic, the morality of eating meat. A few years ago, I would buy fresh fish or crab or chicken because they tastes better than frozen one. Most of the time, the vendor would kill them for me. But these recent years, I refuse to buy fresh one anymore since I can not bear the scene of killing. I would like to know what is the reason that made me changed my attitude.
ReplyDeleteThe other question I would like to ask is related to a neighor of my parents. The young coupl owns a hot pot restaurent, which only serve hot pot with dog meat and vegetables. Everyday they will buy dogs and kill them for meat. Later, when they had their only baby boy, something miserable happened to him. One of the boy's ear was blocked. There was no ear hole. Some people said that it was because his parents killed too much dogs and the God was punishing them in that way. I think Buddism thinks the same way. I want to know this is superstitions, or this is something else.
I would like to vote for the first topic, same as June but for different reason. I think after the discussion of the first topic, we will learn a lot about how to take care ourselves by appropriate eating habit and modify our lifestyle in proper way. I am not interested much in religion topic. It does not mean I do not believe in any religion; in contrast, I do have a faith on Buddhism and also respect every religion as long as it teaches people to be good. Even though the result of discussion shows religion is very evil, I will still keep the good teaching with me. Whether religion good or bad, I am still unchanged.
ReplyDeleteIn short, I will not change my behavior by discussing about religion but I will change my behavior by discussing about eating.
For June question, even Buddhists trend to believe like June said but for me it can explain easily by the psychology term "selective perception". There are many ear-blocked people around the world which we may never notice but when an ear-blocked child was born in that kind of family, it like a confirmation of what we believe. Therefore, we, Buddhists, trend to believe that the child born like that because of what his or her parents did since it support what we believe.
I prefer the first topic which is the morality of eating meat. I think it's more interesting than religious topic.
ReplyDeleteAbout eating dogs news, I have heard several days but today I just watch TV about this. The picture was so bad. Thousands dogs were packed in hundreds very old broken small cases. Some died and almost a hundred die today after polices found. I think dog is for petting not for eating. They are smart, cute and honest.
That makes me want to know who is the first one in this world who have an idea about eating dogs. Is dog meat delicious?
So, is it OK to eat dogs?
ReplyDeleteIs eating dogs the same as eating pigs or chickens?
Why or why not?
Is there anything we should not eat, or is everything OK? (Everything?)