What we read
We have just read Stephen Law's introduction to his essay "Carving the Roast Beast" (2018). In this essay, Law presents most of the ideas in the dialogue form that was begun by in his Academy, from which we get the English word academic, by Plato about 2,400 years ago, and which remained popular in academic work until recently, being the choice of the scientist Galileo Galilei, and remaining popular with such recent philosophers as the great essayist David Hume.
I chose this essay because, although not written in the usual style of academic essays today, it is by an academic, and follows the usual organization of an academic essay: there is an introduction in which the writer states his thesis, which we have seen; a body, whose job is to support that thesis; and a conclusion to end the essay by smoothly leading readers out from the thesis that has now been supported.
Law's short essay also provides excellent examples of the use of examples, reasons and explanations to support a thesis, which is what the writing task for Unit 6 of Skillful asks us to do on page 65.
I chose this essay because, although not written in the usual style of academic essays today, it is by an academic, and follows the usual organization of an academic essay: there is an introduction in which the writer states his thesis, which we have seen; a body, whose job is to support that thesis; and a conclusion to end the essay by smoothly leading readers out from the thesis that has now been supported.
Law's short essay also provides excellent examples of the use of examples, reasons and explanations to support a thesis, which is what the writing task for Unit 6 of Skillful asks us to do on page 65.
___________________________________
Our response
We have now also done a quick survey to find out our initial responses to Law's thesis that eating meat is morally wrong. Before reading the body of his essay, in which we expect him to support his thesis, it is helpful to briefly discuss not only whether we agree or disagree with him, but what our reasons for this are.
In a comment, explain why you agree or disagree with Stephen Law's thesis. If you thought that whether it is morally acceptable to eat meat depends on something, this is also your chance to tell us what you think it depends on.
In case you were wondering, I did not choose this essay because I agree with Law. On the contrary, I think he's wrong, but my disagreement is not a good reason for you to disagree with him. As you will see when you read it over the coming week, his essay is very well written, and has a lot to teach us about academic writing, even though its style is unusual for academic work today.
In a comment, explain why you agree or disagree with Stephen Law's thesis. If you thought that whether it is morally acceptable to eat meat depends on something, this is also your chance to tell us what you think it depends on.
In case you were wondering, I did not choose this essay because I agree with Law. On the contrary, I think he's wrong, but my disagreement is not a good reason for you to disagree with him. As you will see when you read it over the coming week, his essay is very well written, and has a lot to teach us about academic writing, even though its style is unusual for academic work today.
___________________________________
Reference
- Law, S. (2018). Carving the Roast Beast [MS Word edition for use at AUA]. Retrieved from https://1drv.ms/w/s!AvLRvG3dUEtbw3Fm4_Mn-_T6Be_S
As my concluding paragraph above says, I think that Law is wrong, but I don't want to tell you my reasons just yet. I am, however, very interested in why you think he's wrong. Your reasons for thinking that he is wrong gives us some ideas to focus on as we read the body of Law's essay, where his job is to persuade us to agree with his thesis.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think eating meat is not morally wrong because human is omnivore, who eat both vegetable and meat. Our bodies need some necessary substances which are only got from meat. That means if we don't eat meat, we will not get enough nutrients for our body. Although eating meat is not wrong, over-consumption of meat is not good too. Eating too much meat makes people's health worse. Moreover, it effects to environment and ecosystem.
ReplyDeleteAs I note in my comment on Fahsai's response below, Amm's idea is probably a common justification for eating meat, although she also puts some limits on the amount of meat we should be eating.
DeleteI thought that Amm's ideas might also be relevant to the question of what Buddhism teaches on this issue, specifically, when it is OK to not only eat, but to kill animals.
DeleteI wonder what others think about this.
Personally, in my opinion, I think it depends on a particular person's belief whether it is wrong or not to consume animal meats. The most important issue would be various religious belief in different parts of the world. For example, pork is forbidden for Muslims; whereas, Han Chinese don't eat beef. Moreover, Thais have a vegetarian festival which they believe that it is good for their health to stay away from eating meats in a certain period. There are also the group of people who prefer consuming small animals such as fish and chicken only and avoiding big animal. Therefore, I think it up to their beliefs whether it is appropriate to eat meat or not
ReplyDeleteAs with some of the other ideas opposing Law's thesis, I think this one is probably fairly popular. If we agree with Pim's argument, that would undermine Law's thesis.
DeleteBut do we want to agree with Pim?
I'm curious to see how others feel about this reason to believe that Law is wrong about eating meat.
As I was browsing the BBC News with my coffee this morning, it occurred to me that Pim's idea is relevant to the ideas in some of the articles that I read.
DeleteFor example, must we accept that if a religion says so, it's OK to imprison or kill gays and women because they behave against the beliefs of those societies? This is what is seen and implied in such reports as "Egyptian actress Rania Youssef accused over revealing dress" and "Pope Francis 'worried' about homosexuality in the priesthood."
Do we really want to say that good and bad, right and wrong depend on what people believe? If terrorists really believe that they are doing a good thing, as I am sure they do, does that really make it right to use bombs to kill a lot of people?
And as you read his essay, has Law thought of this opposing argument that Pim has clearly presented for us to think about?
From the reading article page 3 line 12, to satisfy Gemma with her request to answer about what’s the difference between humans and other species that justifies us treating them so differently?
DeleteThen, I would explain that it really depends upon the purpose of the killing.
Obviously, we are all living in a very large and very complex eco-systems called Earth that is consisted of a number of food-chains, some animals are preys, on the other hand some are predators, and even some animals that are called predators have literally found itself become a food-chain of another bigger size predators which is according to the rules of thumb. I believe that there is nothing to do with morality in this eco-system. Just because young little Emma doesn’t eat meat, it cannot guarantee that her life will not be threaten by a big starving lion.
In addition to my ideas, long before human has reached to the period when we call ourselves as civilized people which was probably around the same time that the moral and the social norm were revolutionized, humans were called barbarians, even though they hunted those meats for their own survivor which I personally don’t quite agree with this word “barbarians”. Otherwise, there will be no word left to call people in this present days who are shooting and hunting those animals as a part of their hunting games. Consider this case for example, whom do you think the words “morally wrong” are deserved.
Jack's first sentence shows that he has understood Law's main supporting argument, which is presented through Gemma's speech.
DeleteWhy should we treat other animals differently to the way we treat humans?
Very bluntly, if it's OK to kill and eat animals, why would it not also be OK to kill and eat human animals? Some societies have done this in the past, and some people, usually called psychopaths or monsters, do this today. Are they wrong? Some of your previous comments suggest that the writers think it would be perfectly OK to kill and eat people if that is what we like or what society approves. Is that really what you want to argue?
Law thinks this is an important question that needs an answer. Gemma's family tries to answer it. How successful are their answers? Do you have a better answer than the ones suggested by Gemma's family?
I do not agree with Law because I am a person who eats meat. Meats can help me to have strong muscel so that why i do not agree with him.
ReplyDeleteThis seems to me closely related to Amm's response to Law's thesis, and is certainly a point that we should be looking for Law to address in the body of his essay. I think these are fairly common opposing ideas to Law's main idea, so if he wants to persuade us to agree that he is right, he really does need to discuss this opposing argument, and show that it's not as strong as many of us might think.
DeleteAs you are reading his support, does Law manage to do this? Does he show that this popular opposing argument isn't strong enough to prove his thesis wrong.
Since I grow up with my buddhism belief, the buddha said that there is nothing wrong if we choose to eat meat. I think Stephen use his own idead and judgement when jump into conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI liked the response that Amm made in class to Jack's idea here, and also worth noting is that many Buddhists, perhaps a majority, do think that they their religious beliefs ask them not to eat meat. This might not be the teachings of mainstream Thai Buddhism, but perhaps it needs to be considered which version of Buddhism has the right idea here. But for now, I think that Amm made a good point, one that needs to be answered.
DeleteAnd of course, we will be looking to see what Law says about this in the body of his essay.
Now that I've thought about it a bit more, I think that there are two separate questions here. One is the same one that I've just written about in a new comment on Pim's idea above.
DeleteThe second is what Buddhism actually teaches. Of the competing groups of Buddhists, who is right about the Buddha's teaching regarding eating meat: those who say it's OK to eat meat, or those who say Buddhists should be vegetarian?
It depend on what you want to eat for survival your life in my opinion , for most people living in the developed world...(I'll continue this comment)
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like the start of an interesting initial response to Law's controversial thesis, with which no one in our class seems to agree.
DeleteI'm looking forward to a bit more explanation of what Fluke means it depends on, perhaps with some examples to help make the idea clear. I'm also intrigued by "for most people in the developed world," which sounds like the start of an interesting idea.
Coming soon, we hope ...
DeleteI disagree with his thesis that eating meat is wrong because people can choose their food with freedom and they have to consider of the nutrients of food for looking after their health.Moreover,meat is a rich protien resource.People should eat meat in balance and realize the value of animals'lives.
ReplyDeleteI like the phrase "realize the value of animals' lives."
DeleteWhat is the value of an animal's life? And as we read Law, what does he have to say on this?
Have we ever wonder why it's forbidden for Muslim to eat pork but it's okay for them to eat beef while some Chinese people who believe in Kwan-Yin Goddess (The Chinese Goddess) are allowed eat all type of animals except cows as it will be considered as a sin if they do so. Why almost all the Indian population are vegetarians compare to the rest of the population in this world who are not?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think, it's Gemma's decision to choose the way she would like to live her life, but she should not accuse others who don't live their life the same way as she lives. Also, if Gemma think that it's morally wrong to kill life, maybe she probably forget that those plants she eats, are the living organisms on this planet as well. Then, it should be morally wrong too if she cooks it and makes them her own food. Now Gamma's life will have to rely on only plain water which is not impossible.
The bottom line is we can live our live in harmony according to our believe with others who have diiferent practices as long as it's not against the common sense of the social norm.
Thank you Jack. Although it's a good point, I think that Gemma has thought of and answered the objection that she should not eat plants either.
DeleteThe other reason seems similar to Pim's earlier idea, so I'm wondering how others will reply to that. Should allow people to do whatever they or their society accept as morally OK? (Actually, I think that Law does also answer this popular opposing argument, but perhaps someone else will make that a bit more explicit. Or does everyone agree with Pim and Jack?)
I didn't explain why "I think that Gemma has thought of and answered the objection that she should not eat plants either."
DeleteI'm hoping that someone else will do that for me. Why does Gemma's objection not also apply to plants, which are, as Jack reminds us, certainly living things?
Jack's other objection to Law's thesis seems to me the more important one, and more in need of a response. Some further explanation, by it's supporters or opponents, might also be useful. I would suggest that using some specific examples might also be helpful, including perhaps a couple of the examples that Law gives, although making up your own examples is also a very effective way to check your understanding of an idea, in addition to being useful support for readers.
Another point to think about
ReplyDeleteQuestion 3 on set 2 of the check questions is about the sources that Law cites.
I only asked you whether Law agrees or disagrees with each of his cited sources. But it might also be useful to think about whether those sources agree or disagree with Law speaking through Gemma.