What we read
We have just read the introduction to philosopher Stephen Law's short essay "Carving the Roast Beast," in which he states his thesis that "It's morally wrong to eat meat."
So confident was I that most, if not all, of us would think that Law is wrong that I wrote this blog post assuming that we disagree with Law's main idea about the morality of eating meat. But if the results of our quick survey on Classroom have just proved me wrong, that's OK: predicting the future is always risky.
So confident was I that most, if not all, of us would think that Law is wrong that I wrote this blog post assuming that we disagree with Law's main idea about the morality of eating meat. But if the results of our quick survey on Classroom have just proved me wrong, that's OK: predicting the future is always risky.
___________________________________
Our response
Critical thinking is an important element of our class in academic reading and writing, which is why our disagreement with Law's thesis is so helpful. Although I eat meat every day with a clear conscience (I'm one of the people who voted against Law's thesis), Law's short essay is a strong example of the sort of critical thinking skills we want to practice. In particular, we are going to write a persuasive essay later this term, and although we will use a more modern format than the traditional dialogue that Law chose to present his ideas, "Carving the Roast Beast" is also a solid piece of persuasive writing.
Since most of us think Law is wrong, he has to work hard to persuade us, his readers, that his thesis is right. And as we read him, we should be looking critically at what he gets right, and where he makes mistakes.
If we cannot find a serious mistake or two in Law's argument, then we should admit that he is right. And that means we either decide we want to be morally bad people or stop our bad meat eating habits.
I don't want to give up beef steak, pork chops, duck confit, prawns, lamb shank, salmon or the other tasty animal flesh that I love.
Since most of us think Law is wrong, he has to work hard to persuade us, his readers, that his thesis is right. And as we read him, we should be looking critically at what he gets right, and where he makes mistakes.
Mmm ... duck confit |
I don't want to give up beef steak, pork chops, duck confit, prawns, lamb shank, salmon or the other tasty animal flesh that I love.
___________________________________
My question
- If you agree with Stephen Law that it's morally wrong to eat meat, what do you think is the strongest argument to persuade those who disagree with you?
or - If disagree with Law, why do you think that he is wrong when he says that "It's morally wrong to eat meat"?
Write a comment to tell your reason(s) for or against Law's controversial thesis on the morality of eating meat.
It's OK, and very likely, that your ideas will evolve as we read Law's support in the body of his essay. For now, we just want your response to his thesis, with a short account of why you agree or disagree with him before we look at his supporting reasons.
___________________________________
Reference
- Law, S. (2018, August). Carving the roast beast [MS document prepared by P. Filicietti for use in EAP classes at AUA, retrieved from https://1drv.ms/w/s!AvLRvG3dUEtbw3Fm4_Mn-_T6Be_S ]. From S. Law, 2003, The Xmas Files: The Philosophy of Christmas, [Kindle Edition] (pp. 124 - 140). Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Available from https://www.amazon.com/