Wednesday, 16 August 2017

Has Law persuaded you?

What we read 
We have now finished reading philosopher Steven Law's essay "Carving the Roast Beast" (2003). Has Law persuaded you that his thesis is correct? That is, do you now agree with him that it is morally wrong to eat meat? 
_______________________________________ 

My response 
You already know that I disagree with Law. My reason for choosing this as an extended reading is not because I happen to agree with Law in thinking that we should be vegetarians. What is like is that although he is writing for a general, educated audience, he presents soundly reasoned arguments that follow the careful organization we expect in more formal academic work.

In fact, Law is following the most ancient academic traditions in using a dialogue to present his ideas.When Plato presents his ideas and arguments through Socrates, he uses dialogues starring Socrates and other characters who speak: all of the argument is presented as dialogue. Nor was this tradition limited to philosophy. Galileo sets forth his discoveries in physics and astronomy in the form of dialogues, a tradition continued in some of the best work by such recent philosophers as David Hume (18th century).

But the fact that I disagree with Law is not a good reason for you to disagree. If you think he is right, you should now stop eating meat, which is easy to do in Bangkok, which has an abundance of vegetarian food options.
_______________________________________ 

My question for readers 
What do you think? Is Law right that it is morally wrong to eat meat?  
_______________________________________ 
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/

4 comments:

  1. So, as I said in the class - for me this essay is very, vary strange. If I had read it outside the class, I would have decided that this is a very weird essay! Look: Gemma is vegetarian for one week, but she knows a lot! She knows about speciesism, she knows many specific examples, finally she is quite familiar with the Bible. I can't deny that perhaps, Gemma came to vegetarianism very consciously and she was preparing for a long time. But then her decision wouldn't have been a surprise for the family and the nuts cutlets were already ready for the Christmas dinner. Isn't it Perhaps this essay has a good structure for learning and good examples for students. But let's be honest - this situation is almost impossible in real life.
    If you go back to the question of vegetarianism. I have been thinking not to eat meat for a long time already and, I probably will do it. This is not the question of morality or speciesism, religion or health. I just feel that it's right for me. But I understand that's if something right for me, it means that it's not good for all people. It must be a conscious choice of each person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plato's characters are also a bit strange. They might be based on real people, but are often exaggerated since Plato is mainly interested in the philosophical arguments. But Plato's characters are a bit more developed and credible than Gemma is. Even when seriously wrong, Plato was a better writer than Law.

      Delete
  2. You know what? I'm going to write that I agree that it's morally wrong. Your statement:"the fact that I disagree with Law is not a good reason for you to disagree," is common. But after that you says "If you think he is right, you should now stop eating meat"; this obstruct me from this. That's really shocking if I have to stop now. If I could agree with this law and still eat meat, I would. But by your logical, I change my mind.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And after reading Melon's comment above, I realized that that there is a stronger way I to make the point. We think that killing people is normally morally wrong, so we agree that it should be illegal, hence the laws against murder and manslaughter. So should it also be illegal to eat meat? Should the chief executives of CP and other meat producers be thrown into prison for decades for their moral evil in killing millions of animals? And should the customers who order and pay others to kill for them be imprisoned for committing such immoral acts?

    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.