In John Steinbeck's novel Of Mice and Men, the action-packed chapter 3 includes the shooting of Candy's dog, clearly paralleling the coming events in chapter 6, which conclude the novel (2015). We have also read Steven Law's "Carving the Roast Beast" (2003), in which Law argues that eating meat is normally morally wrong, countering the likely opposing arguments with which he expects his meat-loving readers to come up.
_______________________________________
My questions for readers
- Would Steven Law approve of the shooting of Candy's dog?
- And you? Do you agree with the novel that it was right to kill the dog?
_______________________________________
- 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 Steven Law would not approve of the shooting of Candy's. The same as in my opinion, I do not agree with Carlson that he killed Candy's dog. When I know that Candy's dog is going to be killed I very sad, but as I read the idea behind this scene. I understood why Steinback has to write this way.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think that killing Candy's dog depends on the situation in The Great Depression. When you become useless, so you are going to be killed. Even the old man Candy, he quite also worries about his status as an old man, who might be the next useless person on the ranch.
And having now read to the end of the novel, we understand why this scene is so important in the middle of the story.
DeleteI have another critical thinking question coming tomorrow which will bring the conclusion of the story of George and Lennie together with Law and Peter Singer. I agree with Singer, not with Law.
Thank you Stamp for the thoughtful first response here.
So, I know that I'm overthinking person, and I know that I can talk a lot about this question. But I will try to be laconic. When I was reading "Of Mice and Men" for the first time, after situation with a dog, I decided that this is the worst book in history. I'm serious. I think, that I don't know that Steven Law can say about the shooting of Candy's dog. On the one hand, if the dog is really very sick and suffering perhaps killing will stop it. On the other hand this is inhumane. So, what about me? I have a dog. And I love him so much. And I don't know what I will do with him in 10-12 years, when he will very sick. This's very difficult question for me, and I have a lot of arguments for both situations.
ReplyDeleteI like Kate's thoughtful response which points out the conflict between Law's two supporting arguments: that it is important to prevent suffering, but also to respect life.
DeleteLike Pa below, Kate also speaks of her own experience, which is relevant here. I was reminded of the same sort of thing as I read, and in my reply to Pa's comment below I talk a bit about my own experience and ideas on killing pets or even work animals.
I guess Law will not approve it because she thinks human have no right to take animal's life.
ReplyDeleteAnswering the second question, I will not accept it neither. I have a dog at home and if he is very sick or old, I probably cannot stand to let my dog be killed. I really don't know if he want to die or live as long as he could, so I think I cannot decide it for him. On the other hand, if that happens to a persons I know and they choose to die with reason to stop their pain, I think I will accept it because it is their will that come out from acceptable reason.
My family has always had dogs and other animals, and we always either killed them or had them killed to prevent suffering. This was sometimes very hard to do. I remember when my father shot the cattle dog he had had for many years that he was very upset, unlike Carlson, who does not seem particularly upset when he shoots Candy's dog. It was even more distressing for my father when he had to shoot the horse that he had had for much longer, but he realised that it would be selfish to force those increasingly sick and suffering animals to continue living merely because he lacked the courage to do the right thing and end their suffering. It is much easier today, when vets can administer a drug that painlessly ends a suffering life.
DeleteBut then I wonder whether Candy is not right that it is better to help those we care for rather than letting others do what needs to be and should be done. I had not thought about it before, but perhaps that is why my father did not call the vet to do what needed to be done, but did it himself as quickly and painlessly as possible.
I was also interested in Kate's comment above that Of Mice and Men "is the worst book in history" (2017, September 3, at 20:55). This opinion, or something like it, is shared by a lot of Americans, who have for decades kept this piece of great American literature at the top of lists of books banned from American public libraries and schools, we can see from the lists for the last two decades: 1990 - 1999 and 2000 - 2009.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think so many Americans might hate this novel that seventy years after it was published, it still rates as numbers 5 and 6 on these lists of most often banned books?
It certainly has not been forgotten over the decades.
You might also like to quickly scan the lists of banned or challenged books to see if you recognize any other titles there.
DeleteIn my opinion,I do not agree to shot Candy's dog as I think shooting a dog is immoral just as Law's perspective that eating animal's meat is cruel too.
ReplyDeleteSo, I think Law will not approve this behavior.
Actually,my uncle has kept a dog before and we have the same age.Usually,when I went to my uncle's house I always played with it for it grow up with me and it just like my good friend!However,with his older age, it have difficulty in eating and walking,it always lay on his bed.We all know his day is coming so we accompany with it during the rest days.Because it is not only a pet but also our family so we cannot easily sentence its death.
Of course, the Law says "it's morally wrong to eat meat" and it gives many supports not to kill them. One of the reason he provides in the evidence and disapprove is that when we say animal is different from us in the aspect of intelligent. He then compares the animal which isn't intelligent with the baby with disabled brain. That's mean if we kill animal by this reason, we should kill this baby, too. And in Of Mice and Men, the reason is that the dog is stinky; of course, we wouldn't kill our child if they're stinky; instead, we would find another way to fix his smell; this reason doesn't make sense. But there's also another hidden reason which is that it is already disease and hurt itself. Again, if human gets disease, we would cure it, not to kill that diseased guy. But in some case, we find no way to cure and that's only pain for him to live; to let him go can be the last choice but also with the saddest decisive. However, in this story, killing Candy's dog isn't considered as well enough as proper, unlike in previous example with diseased human. So the law doesn't approve this killing, and neither do I.
ReplyDelete