What we read
We have now read and thought about Stephen Law's defence of his controversial thesis that "it's morally wrong to eat meat" (2018, p. 1, line 7). We know this is controversial because almost everyone on our class initially said that Law was wrong. However, Law presents a strong argument, so we need an equally strong reason to say that he is wrong.
___________________________________
My response
As I've already said, I like this essay by Law because although written for a general audience, it displays many of the features common to academic writing. For example, on page 46 of Skillful Reading and Writing 2, Stella Cottrell (2013) lists nine features that collectively distinguish academic writing from the various non-academic versions of English; Law's essay displays all of these. That is, in this essay written in a traditional dialogue form that copies that of such past greats as Plato, Galileo and Hume, we see all of the following: - the use of sources (Law cites three)
- comparing and contrasting of theories and models
- the use of criteria to evaluate opinions
- showing awareness of complexities, especially of opposing arguments
- following an argument (Law does this very well, as we expect from a philosopher)
- making a decision (taking a stand — there is no doubt what Law's stand is)
- following a set structure
- being discursive to smoothly lead readers from point to point
and - being emotionally neutral
Last week, when we looked at the expected formatting for academic work, I used the example of Ali K's response on an online discussion board, which is on page 9 of Skillful 3 (Bixby & Scanlon, 2013), noting also that on online discussion boards, we relax some of the usual requirements for submitting academic work. Over the past few weeks, we have used the online discussion board that is this blog to practice a range of important academic writing skills, especially summarizing and using sources appropriately. If you have looked through Skillful, you might already have noticed that Bixby and Scanlon draw our attention to this modern aspect of academic work on page 66, where the Study Skill that concludes Unit 6 is titled "Participating in Online Discussion Boards" (Bixby & Scanlon, 2013).
And now it's your turn.
Answer the question below in a comment on this discussion of Law's thesis that it is morally wrong to eat meat.
___________________________________
My question
- Has Law now persuaded you that eating meat is morally wrong?
- If he has, what made you change your mind?
- If he has not, why is Law wrong?
Citing Law
In your response, you will need to cite Law. It is probably enough to use such language as:
- Law says that ... / According to Law, ... / Law's idea is that .... and so on, although you might also like to cite the page for the idea you paraphrase, or perhaps very briefly copy and paste in "quotation marks."
___________________________________
References
- Bixby, J. & Scanlon, J. (2013). Skillful Reading & Writing: Student's Book 3. Oxford: Macmillan Education
- Cottrell, S. (2013). Common features of all academic writing. In L. Rogers & J. Wilkin. Skillful Reading & Writing: Student's Book 2 (p. 46). Oxford: Macmillan Education
- Law, S. (2018). Carving the roast beast. In The Xmas Files: The Philosophy of Christmas [MS Word edition prepared by Peter for use in EAP classes at AUA] (pp. 124 - 140). Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Retrieved from https://1drv.ms/w/s!AvLRvG3dUEtbw3Fm4_Mn-_T6Be_S
- Taken from Kindle edition (2003) available from https://www.amazon.com/Xmas-Files-Philosophy-Christmas-ebook/dp/B006FW1FFG/
Yes, he has because Law raised the ideas that are plausible enough to justify eating meat, he, however, subsequently raised his arguments to defend his point of view which, in my opinion, are strong enough to convince his readers. Potential is the section that I like the most in this essay because I think that Law stated his arguments clearly and he use example to argue that potential is just an excuse of human to eat other species without being blamed as speciesism. This is because if there are other species that look like human but don’t have such potential that humans have, humans will still not eat their meats.
ReplyDeleteI also like the way that Law effectively addresses the potential argument. I thought he could have made it even stronger with some more general discussion backed up by examples from other contexts, but perhaps Minnie would like to do that for us, or someone else.
DeletePersonally, I still disagree with Law’s idea that eating meat is morally wrong. After finishing reading his article, my question raised as the following: why do people in general eat meat? Why is it justifiable for certain groups of people to eat meat? In his essay, he informs us about why it is morally wrong to eat meat, but Law does not put himself into the shoes of those people who eat meat. It would be more persuasive if he would have shown that he understands what make people eat meat.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think his idea is very ideology. According to Law, eating meat is morally wrong doing, because it is cruelty to animals and discrimination against other animal species. For me, killing and eating animal for food is acceptable. In fact hunting, killing, farming and eating animals have become a part of human culture since ancient era. For me, it is not cruelty to kill farm animals for foods, but it is cruelty to kill these animals for fun. I also disagree with the idea of speciesism. I think it is very ideology—it does not reflect the real world, and species is not a moral factor. I understand that speciesism shares some ideas of racism or sexism, but I think it is not appropriate to compare human’s rights with animals’ rights.
Thank you M. I'm glad to see that someone has agreed with me in thinking that Law is wrong. But before I reply more, I need to be a bit clearer about what you mean when you describe Law's main supporting reason as being an "ideology." Could explain this a little? That is, could you give us your definition of the term ideology. It might also be useful if you explain why you think this is a problem for Law's argument.
DeleteBut as can see from the summary of the latest votes, at least a couple more of your classmates also think that Law is wrong.
DeleteSo what I'm wondering is what their reasons might be.
Yes, Law has persuaded me that eating meat is morally wrong. He gives many strong and effective supporting reasons to his idea. For an example, Law says that "The only thing that distinguishes the infant from the animal is that it is biologically a member of the species Homo Sapiens." I think, this is very true. Another example that he raises very well to support his idea is that when he talks about the black and white people about the social bonds and "racist society". Law can find evidence to support every point that eating meat is morally wrong. That's why I agree with his idea.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, I ask myself many questions about not eating meat.
1. Will we still alive from not eating meat?
2. Will it better for the balanced ecosystem if human doesn't intervene?
3. Will we be healthier if we don't eat meat?
4. Are there other sources of protein if we don't eat meat?
The answers are all "YES". We can live healthy without eating meat and there are many healthy protein sources such as tofu, corn, mushroom, pea, etc.
Thank you Jay. I like your list of questions about eating meat, to which you reply "YES," it is not only not necessary to eat meat for health reasons, that it is, on the contrary, probably healthier to not eat meat. As Harvard Health Publishing, part of the Harvard University Medical School says, the evidence is increasingly "confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating" (2017).
DeleteReference
Harvard Health Publishing. (2017, December 4). Becoming a vegetarian. Retrieved from https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/becoming-a-vegetarian
I also like Jay's comment because the questions he asks and answers are typically a common reason to argue against Law, but as Jay points out, Law is factually correct: the argument that we need to eat meat to be healthy is normally wrong; we do not need to meat for health reasons, which answers one common opposing argument to Law's thesis.
DeleteI'm glad that there are now some comments both supporting and opposing Law. I've already told you that I disagree with him, but so far, no one has given my reason for thinking that he is wrong. I deliberately did not tell why I disagree because I did not want to prejudice your thinking. But we should have time to get around to this tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, you might like to reply to your classmates who are supporting the view you think wrong.
I don't think eating meat is morally wrong. But When I was reading Law's essay, I couldn't find some argument to contradict the Law‘s statement, because Law's logic is most perfect, he listed most of opposing argument, and use examples to explain it. But I still have some question, Law didn't answer it. First, What make people form moral? Second, why did we eat meat in the process of evolution into human? I think we eat meat, so we evolved into human. In the past, if we were herbivores, I wonder if we can evolve into humans? It's like a natural instinct, why do we think is wrong? If we eat meat is a morally wrong, how about eating plant? The plant is a life, Why we can kill it and eat them? And I think some examples used by Law are like debates, we can't find enough reason to oppose it in only one aspect, but I don't think is right.
ReplyDeleteThank you Na.
DeleteI especially like your first question, which pushes us to consider more abstract questions about the nature and extent, and even the reality, of moral beliefs. I think that within the limited space of his short essay, Law does give an answer to your second question about eating meat being natural to humans, but that answer might be undone by the answer to your first question.
This sounds like a promising line for you or a classmate to follow up further in a reply.
In "Christmas and Tradition," another of his essays in the book from which I've taken "Carving the Roast Beast," Law does address your first question, which is a bit more complex than the relatively simple question he asks about the morality of eating meat.
He has also published another collection of essays for general readers in which he addresses this problem more directly, again at a more challenging level because the ideas are necessarily more abstract. In case you are interested, the book is The Philosophy Gym.
Law is very good at making complex ideas accessible to interested readers who are not experts in philosophy.
As for me, after reading Law's work, I am convinced that eating meat is morally wrong because the tone of this writing persuaded me to think that way. As we can see that Gemma always has valid reasons to argue against her family members and Law usually supports Gemma' s perspective, for example on page 3 paragraph 19 "It appears that Gemma is correct:..." and on page 6 paragraph 17 "Again, it seems to me that Gemma is right..." and the last one, on page 10, after everyone failed to rebut all Gemma's claims, "The Wilson family fall silent. They stared at turkey getting cold on plate before them" and Mrs Wilson interupted by proposing some nut cutlets instead of turkey.
ReplyDeleteApart from the author's persuasive views, I think that what he wanted is to urge us to think critically. Personally, I think that we could not justify whether or not it is morally wrong to eat meat. It is controversial issue in Gemma's statement on page 3 that "The issue is that it (turkey) was a living thing capable of enjoying life. That life was cut short just so that you could enjoy the taste... That's morally wrong!" As most of us knew that vegetarians are dependent on plants and non-meat food. Could I conclude that eating vegetable is also morally wrong because plants are living things ? (As Na also mentioned above) And if Gemma's supporters said that plants are incapable of feeling and emotion so we can eat it. Can I conclude that those are guilty of speciesism?
As with the questions and points raised by others, I think that Beer's questions about speciesism towards plants are also fairly common, and they do demand answers. Hopefully, a supporter of plant eating will come forward to address them. (Says Peter, who has just had meat and vegetables for breakfast.)
DeleteBeer also raises the that I had in mind when I wrote question 5 on discussion set 1, the question that asks about Law's use of the phrase "I suspect."