What we read
We have now read Stephen Law's persuasive essay "Carving The Roast Beast", in which he aims to persuade his readers to agree with his thesis that it is morally wrong to eat meat (2003).
___________________________________
Our response
Our initial survey on Classroom showed that before reading the body of his essay, where he supports it, all of us disagreed with Law's thesis that eating meat is morally wrong, which Gemma states in the introduction and then supports against the various opposing arguments made by her family members as they sit around the dinner table debating on Christmas day. (Christmas dinners were not like this in my family, but then we had duck, not turkey. Mmm ... duck!)
___________________________________
My question
Has Law now persuaded you that his thesis is right?
- If he has, what changed your mind?
- If he has not, why do you think he is wrong? Where is the mistake in his support?
And do you agree or disagree with your classmates' responses for or against Law?
Suggested process
I suggest you spend a few minutes thinking about exactly what your own main idea on the topic of Stephen Law's thesis is, and how you will write the thesis statement that tells us that main idea. Then think about your main supporting points for that thesis. Finally, write a paragraph or two that tell us your thesis on the topic and why we should agree with you.- topic = Stephen Law's thesis that it's morally wrong to eat meat
- thesis = your main idea about the above noun phrase
- support = how are you going to persuade us to agree with you? Why do you think that you are right and that we are wrong to disagree with you?
Remember
Your response writing will be stronger if you write as if your readers have not seen the questions you are responding to. That is, your writing should make sense independently of my comments and instructions here.
___________________________________
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/
By agreeing on Law's essay, if I have to vote or to get agreement, I would choose not eating meat as it is logically right. With the note that I am not sure if Vitamin B12 from meat really matter, as long as people stay healthy without meat, there is no good reason to eat them.
ReplyDeleteWhen it come to food choices, I have no preference between meat and non-meat which means with the same effort, I can be non-meat eater. I eat as a vegetarian occasionally. Each time took like ten days which is during my practice of Dhamma and Meditation at some center and it is because I got served with that and did not get to choose food. However, I felt normal like I could do this for all my life. My weak justification for eating meat is that I would suffer my daily life not to eat meat as long as meat is food mainstream. Being against the majority of people, non-meat eating requires money, preparation and time. Therefore, average-income people or even poor ones are not capable to do.
Based on my interpretation of Buddha's discourses to which mentally being neutral is important, food preference is something more considerable than what to eat. According to Buddha’s precepts, Monks must not choose but take whatever they get if it is not against any precepts.
Even so, for monks, Buddha prohibit 10 types of meats including human kind and second, meats of any animals specifically killed for the sake of the eater only and third, meat from death the eater see or hear about and final one, meat of which the eater is disgusted. The last rule would be a good excuse if a monk want to be vegetarian which is quite popular in some temples.
Eating meat leaves some effects on humans. It reflects the way we treat animals. Longer humans eat meat, more usual they feel on slaughterhouse. Is finally abuse justified? It is a paradox of relationships that humans eat some animals while they love some other.