What we read
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/
I disagree with Law. I did not choose this essay for us to read because I agree with his thesis. I like the essay because it is a very well-written piece of work supporting an idea that most of us think is wrong. Law's ideas are logically organized, he explains them well, and gives plenty of useful examples to help us understand his arguments. If we then think he's wrong, we have practice critical thinking to explain why we disagree, and this is the sort of thing that academics do all the time: they are always disagreeing with each other, which is how get new knowledge and correct mistakes from the past.
ReplyDeleteI hope you enjoy reading his essay and thinking about his ideas.
Now, it's time for lunch. I'm having duck at MK today. How about you?
And now that I have just read all of your initial comments, there is plenty there to think about. Some of your ideas, on both sides, are ideas that Stephen Law address. That is something to look for as you read Law's support in the body of his essay for his controversial thesis.
DeleteWhich of your classmates' ideas below come up in Law?
How does Law treat those ideas?
Have some of your classmates given strong reasons that Law fails to discuss?
Thank you for sharing your ideas in the comments below. They provide us with a solid start to this longer reading exercise.
I think this law is not right because nature build us with many of diversity, to make balance on this planet for example carnivore eats herbivore. And for other reason is that the moral is just what human create to support their opinions and attitudes in their beliefs but i didn't against their mind but i think they shouldn't make it as a law.
ReplyDeleteThis is the right sort of argument to support your main idea that Law is wrong.
DeleteHas Law thought of this opposing argument? If he has, how well does he answer it?
I disagree with Tangmo's opinion, because I think we should reckon about what is nature? what criterion does nature create something, nature want to build the balance between carnivores and herbivores in the world? how do we know these? and how do we know this true?. So I think this logic is overclaimed to use the justification about this issue.
DeleteI disagree with law and him because we are a human and human eat both of meat and plants so it's not immoral.In this word we have 2 kinds of animal one is normal their can live with theirlives in the nature such as the wood and another we feed and make a habitats for them to eat
ReplyDeleteAlthough New's language is different, this sounds like Tangmo's opposing argument above. Is it the same argument?
DeleteHas Law thought of this opposing argument? If he has, how well does he answer it?
I disagree with Law's opinion. Because firstly if we use 'life' criterion for decision to do something that both meat and vegetables are same thing. according this, we should not eat everything. Secondly, food is fundamentally life. Meat is food. Therefore, eating of meat is basically life for survive. Finally, the survive by food that cooking is not the killing animal directly. So I don't accept Law's opinion.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Mhon's first opposing argument is an interesting one. It interests me because unlike some of the other opposing arguments you have given here, Law might not directly state and respond to Mhon's first reason for disagreeing that it's morally wrong to eat meat.
DeleteWhat do you think? Does Law deal with Mhon's first opposing argument? If you think he does, how convincing is Law's response?
I totally agree with Mhon’s suggestion that considering life as the main criteria, both meat and vegetables shouldn’t be eaten which means it is wrong for us to eat. Afterwards, I also support your second argument as I mentioned in my first reply to the questions that it is crucial for everyone to eat meat to fulfill essential nutritional standards.
DeleteI disagree with Law's idea that it's morally wrong to eat meat. Human is omnivorous living things by nature. We should eat meat to fulfill nutrition requirement for strong body. Therefor,eating meat is crucial and according to the process of ecosystem there should have a flow of energy from one animal to another. That is to say, eating meat is not wrong but important for human body.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Now's initial ideas seem the same as Tangmo's and New's opposing idea above, she then adds a different opposing argument when she says that "eating meat is crucial."
DeleteIs this right? Does Law consider this argument, and if he does, how well does he answer it?
I disagree with Law because i think it normal to eat meat.Many animals eat meat so,i think it not morality of eating meat and the meat is delicious.Some people take care of them for eat.
ReplyDeleteSummer's main idea seems again similar to one that has been previously stated by Tangmo, New and Now, but his language adds a useful new perspective since it seems to me closer to the way that Law state's this popular opposing argument to his thesis.
DeleteI agree with Law's idea because I think it is totally wrong to eat meat when you think about moral. Animals are living creature as well as human so try to think like that when you kill another human you definitely going to jail and everyone will say it totally wrong in every point of view so you should use that logic for animals as well.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm now wondering how Ploy will respond to Mhon's first opposing argument in his comment above.
DeleteBut Ploy's thoughtful comment also makes a similar connection to the argument that is Law's main supporting reason. In our discussion tomorrow, Ploy will probably be able to explain any problems you might have had in understanding Law's main supporting argument.
I agree with Law and you too. My opinion seems like yours as I think the same way . By the way , I like the word 'logic' as well.
DeleteI think right or wrong, it's based on moral or in real life. For me, In moral, I think slaughter the animals is violence to them.Moreover any creatures have conciousness, they can feel depress or happy so doing harm to them is morally wrong and i agree with the law.Conversely in real life,there are food chains,hunters have to hunt victims to survive.
ReplyDeleteYo, this sounds like a good presentation of arguments from both sides, but I'm not sure which side you are on. Is Law right or wrong? I'm guessing you think he's wrong, for which you present a version of one of his first supporting reasons. And if we have any problem understanding that in our discussion tomorrow morning, you should be able to explain it.
DeleteI disagree with Yo's reason especially this sentence; "think right or wrong, it's based on moral or in real life". I agree for choosing right or wrong upon on each context that we confront with some situations, but when Yo tell "real life", whose life?. Because I think people have various lifes, each people have the different views of life. So this reason will have a problem for this justification. Because some people view to eat meat rightly and wrongly. We can't decide what reason is right or wrong, if we use this logic.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think he's wrong because meat is consisted of many types of nutrition and proteins which are really important for our dairy life. If you don't have it, it might cause some diseases, for example anemea and low-blood pressure. Moreover, human is omnivorous so it's logically right to eat meat, because meat won't affect our digestive system but eating it too much can affect our digestive track and cause stomachache and constipation.
ReplyDeleteBoat usefully gives us a medical perspective, not only restating Now's idea from her comment above, but adding that "eating [meat] too much can affect our digestive track" in harmful ways. I thought that this additional information might be relevant to the argument. What do you think?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with his law. I don't think that eating meat is morally wrong. That's because vegetarian is just the way that some people choose by their own to eat meat or not. It depends on what are rules or the scope they make on eating some thing. For example, though someone consider eggs as it is a same group of meat, so some vegetarian eat eggs but some vegetarian don't eat at all. I think eating meat or not is a decision of ourselves and it is not a same law for everyone. So, I don't think it is morally wrong.
ReplyDeleteComing from the student of law, Krong's opposing argument seems to me a bit different, and perhaps far more radical, than the other thoughtful opposing arguments that people have suggested here.
DeleteDo you like the direction that Krong is leading us?
Thesedays,How many single of life were killed in order to meet the demand of human unlimited consumption ?
ReplyDeleteAlthough I'm not a vegan,I see that as [we] are one of the creatures and animals such as pig,chicken,fish or other animals are creature too.
If [we] kill someone,It will be morally wrong. So, if [we] kill animals that are a creature indirectly by eating them, Why isn't it morally wrong?
And as Ploy does in her comment above, Wan's final question pushes us to think about a point that is very important to Law. In fact, Wan's question seems to me an indirect statement of Law's main supporting argument.
DeleteSo, do you agree with her? If you are one of the majority who disagree with Law, can Wan's question be answered in a satisfactory way?