As we saw on Thursday morning, philosopher Stephen Law, speaking through the voice of Gemma Wilson, wants to talk about eating meat, and he thinks that it's morally wrong (2003, p. 124). Law has met our expectation that his introduction tell us his
topic (= eating meat) and his main
idea about that topic (= it is morally wrong). Now, he has to persuade us, and as our quick vote on Thursday showed, there is a lot of disagreement at the moment, so Law needs some strong support if he is to persuade everyone to change their minds, and presumably to stop eating meat, or at least make a sincere effort to stop: if we think some action is immoral, we will try not to do it. (Won't we?)
But before we read all of Law, it might be useful to write down in a brief comment or three why you think what you do.
- If you are one of the people who agree with Law, why do you think it's wrong to eat meat? I suspect that a couple of people in our class have reasons that are very different to Law's, and that's useful to know.
- If you think Law is wrong, why? What are your reasons for thinking it's morally OK to eat meat?
- And do you agree or disagree with your classmates reasons?
- Are their reasons strong or weak? (You might agree with a reason, but still think it's weak.)
And of course any other response that comes to mind here can be written down as a comment contributing to the discussion.
Should I make this a writing assignment for homework?
Law, S. (2003). Carving the Roast Beast. In
The Xmas Files: The Philosophy of Christmas (p. 124 - 140). London" Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
I agree with Law and agree with all of Gemma's ideas. I think human doesn't have right to kill any creatures. I believe that all animals love their lives and don't want to be kill. Just imagine that we, human, are born as chickens and we will be killed soon, we absolutely feel very scared.
ReplyDeleteI try to be vegetarian. My problem is I can't argue with my parents. I can't do like Gemma. While I am eating meat, I feel really bad.
For your last question, I think no.
When I was Googling for an image of the Australian Coat of Arms for my comment on Mim's "Appearance or Personality?" I found the blog post "Eat the Australian Coat of Arms for Australia Day!". I think this is the more appropriate blog post to put it under.
ReplyDeleteBut I prefer my kangaroo and emu not minced up and turned into burgers. On the other hand, I haven't tried it, so maybe I should be a bit more open minded. Perhaps I should put it on the list of things to do when I'm there next month.
Actually, I am confused about myself. I think it's not good to eat meat because animals have life and ,as In said, we don't right to kill them, but we don't kill them by ourselves, on the other hand I think it's not too bad if we eat animals that we feed in order to be our food. And if you say I don't kill it doesn't mean I am not wrong, I will tell you that even monks are meat.
ReplyDeleteI used to try to be vegetarian, but I failed because it's very hard, my family didn't understand and I liked its taste. Now, I try not to think about it when I eat because if I think, i will feel bad
I am carnivore so I eat both meats and vegetables. However, Law's argument is very convincing, but if 'morality' really matters, so why Gamma can eat vegetables without hesitating about the morality of eating vegetable? I'm asking for vegetable's rights!
ReplyDeleteWhat! I have to give up asparagus as well?
DeleteI don't know yet, but this is what I am asking him. lol
DeleteAnyway, I like your topic 'the rule of Law' At first, i think you gonna talk about some political and constitutional issues. You really make me interested in your blog at very beginning- from the topic, not introduction.
DeleteIn my opinion, it's not morally wrong to eat plants because we don't hurt vegetables and fruits when we eat them or pick them from trees. They don't have brain or nervous system.
DeleteI don't think so because, first, according to Law's argument, I think it's another type of prejudice - he calls 'speciesism' which leads to discrimination. Second, there are some studies suggest that plants do feel pain and in some case they can even talk to each others. For example, even though, we generally believe that plants don't have nervous system, according to Smithsonian Channel on 'Do Plants Respond to Pain' suggests that plants do respond to pain - in this experiment, they burn the leafs and then checked electrical signal on the plants and they found a definite electrical signal. They also said that the nerve is like human nerve signal but in lower level.
Delete-----------------------
Do plants respond to pain. Smithsonian Channel Vedio. Retrieved March 17, 2014 from http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/sc/web/video/titles/12151/do-plants-respond-to-pain
And now we are looking forward to In's follow up response to Pa-naeng's supporting reason here.
DeleteI'm not sure if my carrots are trembling in anticipation or not.
And what do others think on the questions being raised here?
I believe that it's ok to eat meat and it's not morally wrong. In my opinion I think it will be completely ok to eat meat if the feeding and killing process is not against animal's right. For example, chicken must be fed in a good condition, have a clear feeding area, or have some space for them to walk (not too crowded) . Let's say they are raised to be the happy chicken. Moreover, in killing process it should cause pain as little as possible or not cause any pain at all. For instance, using a sleeping pill with them before put them down or use some electricity to kill them. This is similar to a mercy killing.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if you think animal should enjoy their lives and we should not do any harm to them. Let's think about having birds in a cage. Is it morally wrong? Birds should have freedom, they suppose to fly high and live in a wild. I think in this case it is even worst than killing them.
I like Kew's further expansion of Law's ideas for us to consider.
DeleteIs this right? Is keeping birds or other animals in cages even worse than eating them?
Although most of reasons may support that eating meat is morally wrong, but is there any exception?
ReplyDeleteSociologically, human can provide food by collect something from the forest, hunting and farming, which depend on geography and environment. If some men and women live in a drought place, with few grass on the surface, but full of animals such as deer, sheep and so fourth. Is it morally wrong for them to make themselves survive?
Moreover, according to p.140 of Law's book, Gemma's premise to support that human shouldn't eat animal because animals eat us is something arguable:
1) "First of all, animals have to eat each other to survive, don't they?" and
2) "Second, animals have no sense of right and wrong so they cannot be blamed for what they do." (para 1)
For 1), is "do something in order to survive" is as the same condition as the people who live in the drought area? and
For 2), is there any possibility that human will "have no sense of right and wrong"?
According to 2), could we infer that this argument is not strong enough because this is another version of "speciesism"?
(Human know what is right and wrong but animals = human > animals // White people know what is right and wrong but color people = white people > color people?)
If this true, so the reason that Gemma use to support her idea on page 126-127 is collapsed and should be another strong reason to support with?
Reference
Law, S. (2003). Carving the Roast Beast. In The Xmas Files: The Philosophy of Christmas (p. 124 - 140). London" Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
What might Law's responses be to the objections, the opposing arguments, so clearly thought out and presented by Book?
DeleteI'm also reminded here of what seems to me to be a problem for Buddhists: I think that Buddhist teaching, such as the First of the five Precepts, is against most of the meat eating that is indulged in today.
I agree with you that Buddhists have this problem. Some might said that the precept only states that "Do not kill any lives" is not the same as "Do not eat animals".
DeleteRespectively, I can't distinguish between these two. I tried to search more and found something about what Buddha says that:
"Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you." (para 5, cited from Book of the Discipline p.325)
Also, different countries and school of thoughts are matter; in China, monks must be vegetarian while there is no such rule in Thailand.
Reference
Brahmavamso. (1990). What the Buddha Said About Eating Meat. Buddhist Society of Western Australia. Retrieved March 17, 2014 from http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/meat.html
Buddhist vegetarianism. (2014, January 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:40, March 17, 2014, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddhist_vegetarianism&oldid=592649108
I agree with Law but i'm the one who love to eat meat. In Moral way, it right to think that eating meat is wrong. But if they already died before you cook it, I think I should to eat it because it already died for you.
ReplyDeleteMy response here reminds me of Mrs. Wilson's complaint to Gemma: "do you have bring up these revolting analogies at the dinner table?" (Law, 2003, p. 127)
DeleteI think that if an animal had already died and you found it on the side of the road, perhaps having been run over by someone else's car, then you would not be responsible for its death or for causing the killing of any other animal.
But I don't this is so for meat bought in a supermarket or other shop, or meat bought in McDonalds hamburgers and or other shops and the like. Buying this already dead meat does seem to me to cause other animals to be killed.
If nothing is really alive anyway, as Science writer Ferris Jabr argues in a recent New York Times opinion essay, does that solve our worries here? (2014).
ReplyDeleteReference
Jabr, F. (2014, March 12). Why Nothing Is Truly Alive. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/opinion/why-nothing-is-truly-alive.html