Before you read the body of his essay, it might be useful to quickly write a comment below to answer two questions:
- Do you agree with Law? Is he right that it is morally wrong to eat meat? Should we abstain from eating meat?
- What is your support (not Law's support, but your reasons before you read Law) for answering either "Yes" or "No" to question 1 above?
In case you are interested, I use this essay because most students disagree with Law, at least initially, and that's good. If you are one of the majority who disagree with Law, why do you think his main idea is wrong?
And if you are in the minority who already agree with him, what is your reason for saying that it's morally wrong to eat meat? Why do you think your classmates should change their minds?
This is response writing, and the questions above ask you to respond to Law's main idea that "it's morally wrong to eat meat" (p. 124), not to his reasons, which we will be looking at next week and which you might like to respond to then. For now, it is not necessary to have read any more than the one page we read in class this morning to write a good response comment. And some opinions on the topic of eating meat must be wrong: if Stephen Law is right, then most students' have a false idea. If most students' beliefs are right, then Law's main idea is wrong.
What do you think? Which opinion on eating meat is correct? Why do you think that? And why are the others mistaken?
__________
Reference
at first, i think, we should start with the question "what is meat?". meat means only real meat, or we should include artificial meat in the definition.
ReplyDeletefew months ago, i heard the mews that nowadays science enable me to produce artificial meat which give me identical nutrition as real meat, but right now it is not distributed due to a commercial reason -- its taste and its smell are too terrible to eat. however, i suppose that we will have a chance to taste it soon.
this is why i ask for definition of meat. actually, i think that eating real meat is morally wrong, because we have to kill lives to gain meat, no matter what kind of lives, pig, chicken, duck, cat or dog. in my opinion, every life is equal, value of a human life equal to an ant's. If we resist eating dogs' meat, why don't we resist turkey's and other animal meat. On the other hand, i think eating artificial meat is not morally wrong at all, because we don't kill any life to get that meat. so if Law's meat means real meat i think it is immoral, and i suppose that he means real meat, because in 2003 there was no artificial meat; nevertheless, i just want to broaden this topic a little to cover about artificial one, because today's situation and environment have been changed. i think it's more challenging and more useful to think about it as well as real meat.
however, i am a real meat eater LOL. i certainly don't like to eat most vegetable. it means that i always do something immorally wrong -- in mine and Law's opinion -- LOL. yet, i have no any excuse about that. on the other hand, i think to accept something which you did wrong is the good start for every development. (i didn't mean that i will no longer eat meat, and be a vegetarian, yet i mean that i am waiting for the day that artificial meat is available to buy at low cost LOL)
P raises a good point that I had not thought of: does meat include artificial meat?
DeleteFor now, assume, that when Law, in the voice of Gemma, says "meat" that he means the real kind, which, as P usefully clarifies, comes from animals. The word meat in the context of Law's essay does not mean any artificial kind that has not come from an animal.
But I like the distinction that P explains so well.
He also makes a couple of other points that I thought worth further discussion, so feel welcome to take them up.
Although the human development is better than another creatures in the world but I think every living things in our world is equal, they have their own life and have to survive for reproduction. If people think killing someone is wrong, killing some kind of animals for eating their meat is also morally wrong. So I exactly agree with Law's main idea.
ReplyDeleteBut I think we don't need to avoid eating meats. I am someone who eat them everyday, maybe in every meals, although they have life as same as me but they are foods for human, no one blame me that I do something wrong when we eat them. Conversely, many people think eating meats have some benefits. There is "Protein", the necessary nutrient for growth and human's cells repair.
But someone who is vegetarian think they can add protein from eating plants, including nuts, instead. They might believe in something that do not allow to eat any meats ,or they just worry about their health. However, I also think proteins from animal sources are better because they deliver essential amino acids which are all of we need.
I know that my thought and act are totally different. Although I agree that eating meats is morally wrong but I still eat them as usual.
ReplyDeletei agree with Law's idea that eating meat is morally wrong. However, I can't stop eating kind of meat, killing animals to gain meat is common in my minds but I support any ideas to less suffer them. Shot them!? Making asleep before killing. I experienced to do crab dish, the way for preparing crab is shocking crabs by keeping in freezer section in a refrigerator before boiling them.
If i can choose kind of creature, i choose normally fish or small size one than cow or pig meat. sometimes i become a vegetarian a few days per week.
in my opinion, there is a transition in ethic of meat eating.
ReplyDeletei have just little knowledge about food science, so i don't know can nutrition from soy or bean completely substitute for meat. however, i guess that with the advance of today's technology, we can now produce food which can replace meat, as the way of nutrition -- not about taste and smell like i mentioned above.
Therefore, i think in the past, humans were forced to eat meat due to the need of protein. please note that in that time human cannot produce somthing which can replace meat as the protein container. Nevertheless, nowadays, that force have been removed by the technology progress, so i think modern people eat meat because they want -- not they need -- perhaps owing to its taste or the own people's preference.
it is better to say that, i think, in the past eating meat is not morally wrong. they just were morally wrong, because of mankind's ability to produce something that completely substitute nutrition from meat.
this is the reason why i raise the topic about meat's definition, because the environment and situation are changable, so the definition of meat's and the question about it shoud be changed, depending on the changing environment and changing situation.
--------------------
"does size of creature relate to the ethic of killing?" also be an interesting question. actually, from my point, i believe that every life is equal, yet many of my friends believe that i'm wrong, big animal's life is more worth than the small.
after i had discussed with them for a while, i found that they had a reasonable reason to support their belief, that is complexity of nervous system.
they said that on a regular basis big animal have more complex nervous system. in other words, they can elaborately think while small animal cannot. the complex nervous system also enable it to have elaborate emotion. so if you kill a kind of animal which has a complex nervous system, it -- perhaps also its family -- might has capability to feel worse than a kind of animal which has a simple nervous system.
this is quite reasonable, but i have still assert on my belief. i argued that if you say so, it means that you are less morally wrong when you kill someone who has low IQ than other who has high IQ.
this is more challenging if you talk about abortin. Do you have right to kill an infant which has immature nervous system?
I think we can't compare IQ and the complexity of nervous system because an IQ is an indication that tells us person's problem solving skill in human some got 90 , 100 ,120 but our brain complexity still not different because we are all human brain's structure is 99.9 percent the same so the brains of the math master work nearly the same as me which don't good at Maths .
Deletei hope that one of my comment can be equal to two of others TT_TT
ReplyDeleteDefinitely worth two normal comments.
DeleteUnfortunately, when Google does the counting of comments for me, it will only count it as one.
But you are now entitled to make a couple of very short comments.
From my perspective, I can only partially say “yes, I agree with him” because if we really know that it’s wrong, we shouldn't do it anymore. Is that right? But we still do so that why?
ReplyDeleteFor the second question, as I partially said “yes”, the reasons supporting the Law’s idea is “right” and “equality”. I think that every life should have their right to stay alive (I’m wondering that vegetables are lives, aren't they). Then if they have the right, they should have equality as well.
By the way, one thing that comes up in my mind after responding and reading other responses is that it might not have any exact “yes” or “no” answer. If people think that it’s morally wrong, I’m wondering why people still do that. On the other hand, if people think that it isn't morally wrong, I’m also wondering what they use to determine whether it isn't wrong. I feel that actually this topic might be grey.
Deletein my opinion, factor that we use to measure "what should be killed" is not life. according to your comment, i agree that plant is a kind of lives, so i believe that the factor which people, even we are not aware or not, use to account is something like brain, nervous system or capability to think elaborately.
DeleteUseful comment from Ball: "if we really know that it’s wrong, we shouldn't do it anymore. Is that right?" (MeaW Natthawut, May 10, 2014 at 1:22 AM).
DeleteAnd I'm glad that Ball made his idea a Yes/No question. Others can now help him to resolve it: "yes" or "no"?
@P, I think your idea’s quite interesting. However, what do you think about mosquito or poisonous spider? Although we don’t kill them for food, we still do that. Is it morally wrong? I believe they also have brain and can feel pain.
Delete@Peter, I will be pleased if someone can point out some interesting ideas that can expand my horizon.
I don't think that eating meat is morally wrong because it's accepted by most people around the world. Even monks eat meat.
ReplyDeleteAs everyone knows, meat is a good source of protein. Vegetarians may argue that soy is also high of protein. Why not eating soy to compensate for meat? However, soy doesn't contain some important nutrients that you can get from meet. Moreover, soy contains a lot more carbohydrates than meat. You can easily get excessive carbohydrates eating too much soy, which will lead to weight gain and illness.
Meat substitutes are also not good choices for everyday meals because they usually contain lots of salt.
Nothing can replace meat. Eating meet is not morally wrong.
So, if Law is right, meat eating monks are morally wrong. Right?
DeleteBut also see Pueng's deeper comment at May 10, 2014 at 11:56 PM below.
Thinking about it a bit more, Petch's idea in her first paragraph above (May 10, 2014 at 11:52 PM) raises another interesting question: should monks be eating meat?
DeleteActually, I think that there are two different questions here.
The first is Law's question: is it morally right to eat meat?
The second is whether (and under what conditions) Buddhist teaching allows the eating of meat, irrespective of what is morally right or wrong.
Some Buddhists say that a correct understanding of the Buddha's teachings means that his followers should not eat meat, but others obviously think that a correct understanding of Buddhist teaching does allow eating meat. Both groups of Buddhists (followers and monks) cannot be right: one understanding of the Buddha's ideas must be wrong. Which is the right one?
I believe that even within Thailand there is disagreement on this issue amongst followers of Buddhism.
In my opinion, monks can not order food as they like. They receive offerings of food from people. Therefore, they can not avoid eating meat. However, before having a meal, they always say "Thank you to sacrifice one's life to become food for this meal, I just eat to be alive and stop hungriness"- I can not remember exact words. On account of the fact that it is wrong on the first one in the five precept; rules for morality; to abstain from taking life.
Delete'Moral', in my opinion, is a judgement by people that is commonly accepted. It is a common believe that what is right and what is wrong. It may be varied in different countries or different period.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that Pueng's idea here is a common one. Is it right?
DeleteI don't agree with Law. Human is created to eat, not only vegetable, but also meat to survive. Our brain and organs is made of fat and protein and they consume a lot of energy, in order for us to survive. The one thing that make us different from other animal, is our brain. It is a very complicate organ. When we do, think or calculate something, it consumes massive amount of energy. So, eating meat made our ancestor's brain to improve and help them think of something more complex. In my opinion, If our ancestor didn't eat meat, we would be living in caves now.
ReplyDeleteAnd because I'm dental student, I would like to tell you that human teeth, which is omnivore, and herbivore teeth are very different. Herbivore teeth structure is adapt to chewing, so it consist of a lot of teeth that look like our molars and premolars, large, dull and flat, have many cusps and groove, made it to easily crush and grind parts of plants. In the other hand, our teeth structure, not only has molars and premolars like herbivore, we also has incisors and canine. Incisors are made to cut food and canine is made to tear the meat.
Because of all these reasons, I think eating meat is not morally wrong. The thing the I think it is truly morally wrong is leaving leftovers. We take other lives for our own, so at least respect the meat and vegetable on your plate and eat it up.
I like Petch's support for her idea that we are designed to eat meat, perhaps also that our ancestors had to have eaten it for us to be where we are today. It's very persuasive. It sounds like a fact to bear in mind as we continue reading Law next week.
DeleteYou might also notice that I've avoided saying that I agree with Petch's main idea. Do you agree or disagree with it?
Firstly,I don't agree with law because I think human is omnivore animal which have to eat both vegetable and also meat for creating their energy to do any activities in their lives but all living creatures must have their own right for living independently by themselves and not be devastated by the others. I think the ban for not eating meat isn't used in practical term because in our real lives, our body want meat which is one of the essential kinds of foods we eat everyday and if our body don't have enough nutrition for nurturing and repairing our bodies'work, it might lead to many problems or any illnesses.
ReplyDeleteSo I think eating meat is not morally wrong. But I promise with myself that I won't eat beef which is made from cow, I have heard that most chinese people who respect goddess of mercy don't eat beef for all their lives. I don't know that I might be or not in this doctrine but I think cow is the big animal and I will eat less meat and more vegetables if I can.
From meat eater's point of view, eating meat is morally wrong. I personally agree with some opinions above that every life is equal, it is not fair to kill another one to cook food.
ReplyDeleteIt is undeniable that eating meat is accepted in our society in these days or maybe in the past because we do this for several years ago, and become a normal norm. Another reason is most people are not the killers. They are not be in that situation, one's life is dying. To illustrate this, last 3 months, I wanted to eat streamed crab so I called my mom to buy them and I will cook by myself. I did not know before crabs were alive until we cooked. I did not dare to kill them to become my dish, but normally, I ate them without considering. As a result, it shows that my subconscious tells me, it is morally wrong.
I like the deduction that Nan's thoughtful comment suggests: it's true that eating meat is accepted in society, but that does not make it morally right.
DeleteThis is very different to the idea that Pueng has suggested above, that "'Moral', in my opinion, is a judgement by people that is commonly accepted" (May 10, 2014 at 11:56 PM).
As my reply to Pueng suggested, I think her idea is a popular one, but does popular mean right? It appears that Nan disagrees.
Which side are you supporting? And what are your supporting reasons? Can you persuade those on the other side to change their minds?
Although I'm glad this disagreement has come up, I think it's a bit more challenging than the issue that Law focusses on. But it might also be more important because it goes deeper into the nature of moral right and wrong.
Thank you Nan for making the controversy here clear.
I'm also very fond of crab.
DeleteAbout once a week, I'm joined by a friend and his seven-year-old son, Ea, for a meal, and I'm very happy to go along with Ea's fondness for sea food (I'm not quite so keen when he wants McDonalds muck, but thankfully that's not often). Nor do I object to duck, pork and beef. Ea also likes us to order oysters, prawns, fish and squid - he loves squid, and I'm happy to indulge that taste.
I didn't choose Law's essay for us to read because I agree with his main idea.
For my late afternoon meal in a few minutes, chicken is on the menu.
But that your teacher disagrees with an idea does not seem to me a good reason for you to disagree with it, unless your teacher has given strong supporting reasons - and I've given none of my reasons.
I personally don't agree with law's idea for the current situation . Reason is Humans were design to eat meat and plants not only plants and protein from meat is important to human's growth because our body is made of protein . Our nearest relatives, a chimp, hunt are Omnivore not a Herbivore like in the common thought . Human didn't have long intestines like Cows and protein is crucial for brain development so I agree with Petch that if our ancestor didn't eat meat, we would have lived in cave now.
ReplyDeleteBut I like P's idea about artificial meat if we can "grow meat in the lab" still we consider eating "meat form death animals" a morally right act. For me No, The reasons that I stated above that human were design to eat meat and need protein in meat to grow are still the fact in that time but you think of this dilemma. In 2100, the man went to the supermarket and saw a real meat and an artificial meat which testes the same , had the same nutrition and had the same price compared to a real meat but he pick real meat. If you have a better alternatives that not involved killing animal and you don't pick it. I think people I that time will think the man's act is morally wrong. Compared to what people in our time think about the manufactures the third world countries who have a opportunity to use modern machines, unlike the Romans who didn't have it, but still own slave labor .
So the future when people can "grow meat in the lab" maybe the moral attitude towards kill of animals for food will be change. My sons or grandsons maybe say that killing animal for meat is wrong .
Oh No, I mistakenly added "s" after the word "test". It is a huge mistake sorry for that.
DeleteI thought it was the first e rather than the final s that was the mistake in the second paragraph. And that does actually change the meaning.
DeleteIt's a great example.
DeleteAsking your readers to consider a man in a supermarket in 2100 clarifies your idea very well here, and it persuasively helps readers to see the point you are making. This speculative future example also contrasts nicely with the following real example from ancient Roman culture.
And Mek's well supported ideas here also seem to me to connect with an idea that Pueng has put forward for consideration.
I sometimes spot much more serious mistakes in my response comments - often at the moment I'm clicking the blue "Publish" button. My worst ones are when I forget to type the word not, which does tend to change my idea.
DeleteI don't agree with Law, and I don't think that eating meat is morally wrong. We shouldn't abstain from eating meat because our body needs iron and protein which meat can provides. Protein improve the overall health, and our body can't make new cells without protein,because we uses protein to build and repair damaged tissues. We also need iron too. According to research, there are two types of iron -heme, which is found in animal foods, and non-heme, which is from plants. It is true that heme iron (the kind from animals) is better absorbed than non-heme iron. Humans eat meat because we have to,not because we eat it for fun.
ReplyDelete