With his thesis clearly stated, he now has to support it, to show that it is right.
I've just emailed you a page of questions to help check your comprehension as you read the full 16 page essay over the weekend. The all important question that is not there is:
- Does he persuade you that eating meat is immoral?
- Are his arguments strong enough?
- What do you think of Law's approach? How does he approach supporting his thesis?
- Do you think he makes a mistake anywhere? Where? What is the mistake?
- Are there weaknesses in his arguments?
- Which of his arguments do you think are strongest?
- If you disagree with him, why do you think he is wrong? Where is his mistake? And what might his response be to your opposing argument?
- ??
Although we are working with some serious ideas from a modern philosopher, this is an invitation for responses to the text, not essays, so any response is OK. But if you would like to make your comment a short essay, that's fine, too.
__________
References
As you already know, I enjoy eating meat, and since I don't think it is morally wrong, I do think that Law is wrong. But without a good reason for thinking this, it's at least as likely that I'm wrong and that I should therefore correct my false belief. I need a sound reason to say that Law is wrong.
ReplyDeleteI like Law's essay because, although most people usually disagree with him, he makes a strong and clearly argued case for his idea that eating meat is morally wrong. If you disagree with him, as our quick vote on Thursday showed many do disagree, then you need a cogent reason to support your claim that Law is wrong. What is that reason?
I think he's wrong, but that is not a good reason for thinking that it's OK to eat meat after all. (Although an alarming number of people do actually think that this is a good reason!)
And just as democracy does not mean "majority rule", neither does the fact that most people believe that Law is wrong actually make him wrong - majorities are often completely wrong, about facts as much as moral questions: a great majority once believed that the sun orbited the earth, and they were completely wrong; a great majority once accepted that slavery was morally OK, and they were wrong. And a lot of people today hold equally wrong beliefs on both factual and moral issues. I'm certain that some of my beliefs and opinions are wrong (I can't believe that I'm perfect in all of my beliefs), and maybe the moral status of eating meat is one of my false beliefs that I should correct.
So, is Law right, in which case we should stop eating meat, or is he wrong, in which case we need a good reason to show that it's OK to continue enjoying our beef steaks?
I think Law's essay is very effective. He uses dialogues which reflect a normal situation, which can occurs around every house's dinner table; Except Gemma's well-prepared academic responses (which I am not able to do with my mother when we argue about Buddhism). After each one of dialogues, Law explains the ideas come from the Wilson' discussion, and state relevant theories.
ReplyDeleteI like his argument on potential theory of Roger Scruton (p.136), which state that human being has potential for belonging to the human moral community while other species do not have. Law extremely gives two groups contrast- human with deficient genetic code & extraterrestrial living. I think this one is quite weak, because it is totally impossible to make a real contrast, but it is so clear to challenge our morally thinking. And I like his argument, which state that if a pig get a million years time for evolving, it could have the same level of intelligence as human has.
I agree with Law that eating meat is morally wrong, and his ideas are very good. But I think there are still miss something. I do not know too. I feel that if I am going to write this kind of argumentative issue, I need a more strike idea for hitting opponent. Wish I can figure it soon.
As I've already said, your summary paragraphs written in the exam this morning show a solid understanding of Law's ideas and how he organizes his essay to support his main idea that eating meat is morally wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd in those summaries, as everyone correctly demonstrated, whether you agree with Law, whether he persuaded you or not, is irrelevant. But we do care whether Law is right or not; it matters whether he convinces.
As he himself acknowledges when he cites Midgley and Scruton, other philosophers think that Law is wrong, and he cites those two precisely because they put up strong opposing arguments, arguments which Law thinks he can convincingly answer. And I think he does address Scruton's and Midgley's arguments pretty well.
You already know that I don't agree with Law (my purpose in choosing his essay to read in class was not to convert anyone to vegetarianism). My reason is a revised version of Peter Singer's argument.
When Law cites Singer on page 130, he does so with a lengthy quotation, so there is no danger that he is changing Singer's idea; however, Singer uses that idea as a supporting point in a larger argument that is very different to Law's argument, although also against eating meat, and it is with a revised version of Singer's argument that I agree. Unfortunately, that argument has consequences that you might like even less than the idea that Law is right about the morality of eating meat.
So, what do you think?
Has Law convinced you? Or do you think he is wrong? What are your reasons?
At first, I personally thought that Law is definitely right according to his comprehensive reasons, but I found that his one reason is wrong...
ReplyDeleteIn Carving the Roast Beast, he tells us that eating meats is guilty of speciesism. He argues that it is a human's prejudice based on other species, such as pigs, cows and chicken, and says that speciesism is wrong, not different from racism and sexism.
He suggests people to eat vegetables instead of meats which need to kill animals; however, according to OAD, species means "a group into which animals, plants, etc. that are able to breed with each other and produce healthy young", we can assume that people should not eat vegetables as well because vegetables are plants, then we can be considered as speciesism.
So there is the contrast in his idea which makes his reason weaker.
References:
species. Oxford Advanced Dictionary. Retrieved September, 7 2011 from http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/species
What is Law's answer to Tang's opposing argument?
ReplyDelete(Tang's idea shows good critical thinking, but I also think that Law does answer it.)