As we see in the introduction to Law's "Carving the Roast Beast" (2003, p. 1, lines 1 - 14 in our ed.), Stephen Law's thesis, stated by Gemma, who presents his argument in the Wilson family dialogue, is that eating meat is morally wrong. We also see in the introduction that the rest of the Wilson family strongly disagree with this thesis, which Law must support in the body of his essay.
_______________________________________
My Yes/No question is:
Is Stephen Law right that it's morally wrong to eat meat?
My answer is:
No. Law is wrong. But we need a strong reason to support a contrary opinion.
Like the Wilson family, the initial reaction of our class was strong disagreement, so Law must do some serious persuading in the body of his essay if he is to change our minds and bring us to agree that it is morally wrong to eat meat.
You already know that I don't agree with Law. I did not choose this reading for us because I think you should stop eating meat, and I'm not about to give up steak, prawns, bacon or fish myself. I chose Law's essay because it's a very well organized set of strong supporting ideas. It is a strong piece of writing, even if I don't agree with it. Although Law is not writing for an academic audience, he still thinks and organizes his ideas like an academic. We just happen to think he's wrong. But when we disagree with a fellow academic, we are expected to give strong reasons to support our claim that the other person is wrong. It's quite OK, and common in academic work, for people to disagree, but if you say that Stephen Law is wrong, you do have to have a good reason for saying that; the fact that your teacher thinks Law is wrong is not a strong reason for you to think that Law is wrong: it might be your teacher who is wrong.
 |
| In your average Aussie supermarket |
So, if you are one of the majority who currently think that Stephen Law is wrong about eating meat, why do you think that? In a comment, tell us your reason for thinking that Law is wrong. As we read on, we can then see whether Law addresses our opposing arguments or not. (I don't want to unduly influence the discussion, so I'm not saying yet why I disagree with Law.) Of course, if you are persuaded that Law is right and that morally good people do not enjoy hamburgers, kangaroo steak, lamb shank, steamed fish or dog soup, you can add a comment to present your reasons for that belief.
___________
Reference
Law, S. (2003). Carving the roast beast. In The Xmas Files: The Philosophy of Christmas [Kindle Edition] (pp. 124 - 140). Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/
The handout edition I prepared for us to use is at https://1drv.ms/w/s!AvLRvG3dUEtbw3Fm4_Mn-_T6Be_S
The handout edition I prepared for us to use is at https://1drv.ms/w/s!AvLRvG3dUEtbw3Fm4_Mn-_T6Be_S
We can't really infer this from the reading, but one of Law's cited sources actually disagrees with Law's relative assessment of his two supporting arguments, thinking that the first is actually the stronger argument against most meat eating.
ReplyDeleteThe result of the logical consequences was that he received death threats when he took up a position at a top-level university, proving that philosophy can be as dangerous today as it was for Socrates, who was executed by the rule of law of democratic Athens in 399 BC.
The relevant result for us is that another logical consequence of thinking the first not the second of Law's supporting reasons the stronger is that, as we saw in our discussion this morning, Law's very strong thesis is no longer solidly supported: his first supporting reason is not strong enough to support his thesis. But there are other logical consequences of using this reason to disagree with Law, some of which we had hints of in our discussion this morning as we went through the Wilson's failed efforts to counter Gemma's strong argument dependent on the notion of speciesism.
You might prefer to accept Law's argument and agree that it is morally wrong to eat meat than to accept the consequences that come from disagreeing with Law for my reasons.
DeleteHow much are you willing to pay to not feel guilty when eating meat? What logical consequences are you willing to accept?
At first, I answered that it is not naturally morally wrong to eat meat because I am a meat eater so I try to justify what I have done for almost 25 years and not to be guilty for that.
ReplyDeleteBut after I read Law's argument, I think I am convinced to agree with him. As I still cannot come up with better reasons to argue that he is wrong about speciesism being a prejudice. The health reason has been proved by scientific research these days that protein from plant is equivalent to protein from meat.
So right now I agree on Law's reasons. But I might change my mind if I heard your reason.
I think no because no religiousness tell people to don't eat meat but some meats like pork is not acceptable in Muslim. It's not wrong, and it's normally that everyone can eat meat. It has a lot of benefits to build your muscles, repair your body function, and make you grow up. Vegetarian people can stay in their own regularly life without consuming meat. But it's not good for children and young adult that they always eat only vegetable but they don't eat meat. They need to eat every nutrition in moderation because they need to grow up a lot, not like adults.
ReplyDeleteActually, I think that Buddhism does tell people to not normally eat meat, although not all versions of Buddhism interpret the First Precept this way. In Thailand, not causing killing of animals by eating meat is a minority interpretation, but worldwide, most Buddhist do try to practice vegetarianism because they think that is the correct way to understand the Buddha's First Precept.
DeleteSince the act of eating meat is normally a cause of killing, I think that Buddhism does teach that it's normally better not to eat meat. When you eat meat, you are effectively paying someone else to kill animals to satisfy your desire for animal flesh. In the time of the Buddha, he sensibly did not say people should not eat meat, and I think he was perfectly happy for his followers to kill animals for food: 2,500 years ago, people did not have the protein options that we have today, so eating meat was important for health in ways that it is not today.
For an overview, see the Wikipedia article "Buddhist vegetarianism."
Peter Singer develops his argument by starting with an analysis of speciesism, and what follows from it. He concludes that for all living things, a prime moral determinant is the ability to suffer, which excludes plants and other living things that lack a neural or other system that can register suffering.
ReplyDeleteSinger follows this by accepting that in fact it can therefore be morally acceptable to kill unborn babies and the senile whose brains no longer function enough to make them persons. The condition is the first argument that Law rejects as not strong enough: the killing must not cause suffering. Singer's arguments do, therefore, allow us to eat at least some meat with a clear conscience; however, accepting Singer's reasons for disagreeing with Law also requires that we accept abortion up to, and possibly after, the time of birth, and we must also accept that people can ask their doctors to kill them. And a few other things.