In his essay "Carving the Roast Beast", Stephen Law quotes from the philosopher Peter Singer, who is perhaps the most famous philosopher now working. In fact, reminding us that Socrates was sentenced to death by the law in democratic Athens, Singer received death threats from people who hated his ideas when he took up his post at Princeton University.
Death threats? Yes. Even 2,400 years after the Athenian democracy killed Socrates according to the rule of law, philosophy can still be a dangerous business: some people hate critical thinking, sound reasoning and solid evidence, which signs of healthy education often tend to threaten traditional falsehoods, customs, myths, and prejudices, among other morally and factually bad beliefs inherited from our ancestors or elsewhere.
Although Law uses Singer for support, Singer does not agree with Law that killing is always wrong. On the contrary, whilst agreeing with Law that speciesism is wrong, Singer makes a strong case that it is Law's first supporting reason in "Carving the Roast Beast" that is the one that provides a solid basis for good morals, with the speciesism argument reminding us that we cannot justly treat living things differently merely because they are different species. I agree with Singer, which is why I think that Law is wrong when he says that "It's morally wrong to eat meat" (2003, p. 1).
_______________________________________
My questions for readers
Unlike our other critical thinking exercises, you might like to spend a little more time thinking about these questions before you write your comment or comments. (You might prefer to discuss the questions in separate comments.)
- Would Peter Singer approve of the shooting of Candy's dog? Would he agree with Steinbeck's presentation that George was right to kill Lennie?
In other words, what does Law's first supporting reason say about the shooting of Lennie by George?
- Why might Singer's ideas about the basis of good morals have so upset some people that they wanted to kill Singer?
- And you? Do you agree more with Stephen Law or with Peter Singer?
- Finally, was George right to shoot Lennie? Why was it right or wrong?
And if you think that George should not have shot Lennie, what should he have done instead in the situation?
_______________________________________
- 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/
- Steinbeck, J. (2015). Of Mice and Men (Online edition prepared for AEP classes at AUA). Bangkok. Retrieved from https://1drv.ms/w/s!AvLRvG3dUEtbvXfk3Udqvmkiyi34
I think Peter Singer would approve of the shooting of Candy's, at the same time, he would agree with Steinback's presentation that killing Lennie is right. After George knows that Lennie killed Curley's wife, he knows that there is no way to save him, even planning to escape. Lennie just doesn't know how to avoid getting into trouble. He cannot think properly; he has to follow George's instruction all the time. George also doesn't want Lennie to suffer from being tortured.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Law's first supporting reason, Lennie is mentally impaired; he cannot live in this situation without George. As Singer asked us to image a case of a child who born with massive irreparable brain damage, Lennie just like a child who born with brain damage. It would cost a lot of problems to not only Lennie but also George himself. George might be killed by Curley as he is only Lennie's companion
Back to Singer's idea, It is clear that why people upset with his theory, Most of the people believes of humans as beyond creatures. We are superior to other animals, and also the idea of each religion that shows killing people is karma, yes, sure, I agree with that, but it the case that Singer presented in 'Carving the Roast Beast' I think it is not.
I agree with Peter Singer; it reminds me of a controversial issue of legalizing abortion, some believe that having an abortion is equal to killing a baby, but how we can count that child as a human being. Women should have the right to manage this, and if she were not ready, she should have the right to have an abortion.
However, I entirely disagree George's action to Lennie, I would not do that if he were someone who grows up together with me, I would escape with him to another ranch, finding new job together, but I also understand the condition in that period, It might be tough to find a new job, so I would have killed Lennie If I had been in that period.
Thank you Stamp for the thoughtful opening response to the issues here. I'm now wondering how your classmates will take account of your ideas in their own comments, especially your idea on abortion and the killing of Lennie.
DeleteTo be honest, I think this blog post is rally really a critical thinking as it talked about many viewpoints so it is a little difficult for me to write a comment.
ReplyDeleteBut I am totally agree with Stamp about his perspectives to the questions and I think his comment is far excellent.
I think I can consider George's thought to kill Lennie. In my opinion, I think that George shoot Lennie due to having no choice but he didn't want to see Lennie was shoot by others in front of him and there is only one way to help him from punishment.
But if I were George I will not to shot him, I think maybe I will take Lennie go far away from this city and hide in somewhere it is not familiar with people.Although the life might become difficult, I still can't kill my friend by myself, it is really cruel for me.
I think it is not wrong to kill Lennie in that situation but I will not do that.