In "Carving the Roast Beast", philosopher Stephen Law states a strong thesis, one with which many people probably disagree. As a good academic, Law then does what we expect: he supports his controversial thesis statement. Although "Carving the Roast Beast" is not from an academic journal, Law is an academic, and his writing in this short essay reflects some important characteristics of academic writing as he presents a strong argument to support his challenging thesis.
And I do think that his thesis is challenging: we are rational, moral people, and if Law is right, we must stop eating fried chicken, roast pork, beef steak and other tasty lumps of dead animals. If we disagree with him, we need a solid reason for thinking that he is wrong.
So the obvious question is: Is Law right?
How well does he support his thesis? Does he persuade you?
If he fails to persuade you, why? For what reason do you think that Law is wrong?
Law, S. (2003). Carving the roast beast. In
The Xmas Files: The Philosophy of Christmas (p.124 – 140). London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson
I've just enjoyed some tasty roast duck for lunch, and I don't think I did anything morally wrong. I do not agree with Law.
ReplyDeleteAnd I did not choose this reading because I want to you stop eating meat. I chose it because it clearly demonstrates some important points in academic writing, points which are very relevant to what we are also reading about in chapter 7 of Quest.
Don't let my vote against Law's thesis influence you either way: you might disagree even more strongly with my reason against it than you disagree with Law's main idea. Just because I disagree with him is not a good reason for you to disagree with him - I might be wrong, and you don't yet know my reason.
When you vote, either for or against Law, I suggest you tell us your supporting reason or reasons.
I will tell you my reason for thinking that Law is wrong later so that you can then decide whether you agree with it or not.
Law can't convince me even though I don't eat meat for 4 months. His reasons in the body in Chapter 13 of The Philosophy of Christmas can't justify people killing animals for eating,but, that isn't to say,it is unjust to kill animals.He agrees with Peter Singer that it is speciesism to kill animals for eating.But,speciesism to animals is not moral because it is accepted and putted into practice by most people. If my understading is right, doesn't Stephen Law know how to support his thesis statement (killing and eating animals are immoral? or what is his real purpose for failing to persuade readers?
ReplyDeleteSince I'm one of the people who voted against Law, most of you now seem to think that he is right, that eating meat really is morally wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd very conveniently for us, in today's BBC News is the report "Canadian transgender model fires back at Miss Universe".
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think? Is this an example of sexist prejudice?