Analyzing Arguments in Defense of Eating Meat

How important is philosophy?  In his book The Fundamentals of Ethics, Shafer-Landau reflects on how to structure arguments and what makes them sound or logically reasonable.  During his introduction on pages 11-14, Landau breaks down the argument regarding if eating meat should be considered immoral.  He explains how the popular justification in which it is ok for humans to kill animals because animals kill each other isn’t a sound argument because the conclusion isn’t properly supported.  In order to have a sound argument, the premises need to be completely true and must logically guaranty the truth of the conclusion.  He outlines how animals and humans aren’t considered to be on the same moral playing field, which means they obey by different rules of the natural world (11).  Humans actually have ethics, while animals do not, and the false premise eliminates the validity of the argument.
I found this part of the book very interesting because it reminded me of all the discussions I've had with vegetarians on why they don't eat meat.  I've often used the arguments he deconstructs and labels as unsound, and forced me to think about how I can back up my meat eating habits.  I addition, I also felt that it was a reflection on how some people view philosophy as an academic study.  Most students I have personally met denounce philosophy as a "legitimate" course of study and think nothing of it.  However, when parts of their lives are threatened (in this case their dietary habits), they begin trying to argue and come up with arguments, which require a strong philosophical background to have any respectable amount of affect.  Landau’s dissection of the argument made me rethink how I can support my diet with logical evidence, and gave a good example of how difficult it can be to establish solid arguments to a rookie philosopher.