Sunday, 23 October 2011

Is Stephen Law right? Is it (normally) morally wrong to eat meat?

Now that you have had a chance to see his arguments, you might like to vote in the new poll, and add a comment below to support your answer, especially if you still think that Law is wrong. In the poll, I've added the word normally because Law's short essay is addressing the normal situation for most people, for people such as us (2003), not extreme or unusual situations, in some of which he would certainly allow that eating meat was not only morally acceptable, but that it was morally required to kill animals to be eaten.

If he is wrong, why? What argument has be missed? Where does he make a mistake in his persuasive essay?

If you agree with Law, you might like to come to his defence, since I am sure that at least some people in our class will continue to disagree with Law.

I like the essay because it demonstrates very neatly a couple of points in academic writing that are very relevant to the persuasive essay from Quest which you are also working on at the moment. However, I'm not trying to convert anyone to vegetarianism - I am not vegetarian, and I disagree with Law, but that is not a good reason for you to disagree with him; after all, I might be completely wrong. And it's a well written little essay.
__________
References
Law, S. (2003). Carving the roast beast. In The Xmas Files (p.124 – 140). London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson
Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. Peter.AUA25 October 2011 at 18:51

    And on page 136, Law discusses the use of religion as an opposing argument to justify eating meat, concluding that although the Bible clearly says it's OK for humans to eat animals, that that is not a very strong opposing argument to his thesis since there is no reason to believe that the Bible is either true or "a reliable source of moral knowledge" (2003, p. 137).

    Although this failure to be a reliable moral guide or guide to truth is equally true for the sacred texts and dogmas of every other religion, Buddhism, which purports to be based on reason, might do better. Indeed, a correct understanding of the first precept of Buddhism, "I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life" ("Five Precepts", 2011), (Thai: "เราจักถือศีลโดยเว้นจากการเบียดเบียนชีวิต", ("เบญจศีล", 2011)), seems consistent with Law's argument, and explains why many Buddhists do not eat meat, since it follows from the first precept of Buddhism that Buddhists should not normally eat meat.

    Buddhism, being based not on mindless commands and despotic authority, but on reason and moral right, appears to support Law's thesis.


    References
    Five Precepts. (2011, September 26). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 00:31, October 25, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Five_Precepts&oldid=452492195

    เบญจศีล. (2011, ตุลาคม 19). วิกิพีเดีย สารานุกรมเสรี. สืบค้นเมื่อ 00:33, ตุลาคม 25, 2011 จาก //th.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%8D%E0%B8%88%E0%B8%A8%E0%B8%B5%E0%B8%A5&oldid=3524649

    ReplyDelete
  2. Peter.AUA25 October 2011 at 19:15

    And this BBC report on the imminent arrival of factory produced, non-animal meat seemed relevant here: Cohen, D. (2011, October 24). Grow your own meat. BBC News. Retrieved October 25, 2011 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15402552

    ReplyDelete

Before you click the blue "Publish" button for your first comment on a post, check ✔ the "Notify me" box. You want to know when your classmates contribute to a discussion you have joined.

A thoughtful response should normally mean writing for five to ten minutes. After you state your main idea, some details, explanation, examples or other follow up will help your readers.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)