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.

Does one size fit all?

“They say, I say” argues that in order to make a compelling argument, it is best to first summarize or quote the opposition’s beliefs, then to move on to your own claims. This is because the author argues that in order to keep your audience’s attention, it’s important to explain early on to your audience what you are responding about. Although I agree with the author in that this approach is the most beneficial approach to writing an argumentative paper, I also believe that this approach should be reserved for more advanced writers.

How Just are Traditions?

In his The Fundamentals of Ethics, Russ Shafer-Landau discusses morality through the fascinating and intangible, or well, less tangible science of philosophy. The introductory chapter briefly touches on the contents of the book, breaking it down into three sections: value theory, normative ethics, and metaethics. Throughout the introduction he continues to note skepticisms about morality and addresses common “moral” misconceptions like the existence of ethics from an atheist’s perspective, when there’s no God to enforce the rules. Shafer-Landau suggests (but doesn’t actually prove) that morality is inborn and that there is a moral absolute in ethics.

Can Laws be Gender Specific?

By reading through the introduction of The Fundamentals of Ethics by Russ Shafer-Landau, I was able to make various outside of the classroom connections based off of his list of reasonable constraints that guide the way we live found on page 6.  Two of the constraints that seemed most relevant to what goes on in the world today were “Neither the law nor tradition is immune to moral criticism,” and “Equals ought the be treated equally.” (Shafer-Landau, 6)

            A relevant article that I found to deal with both was

The Morality of Laws Limiting Generic Drug Sales

           While some believe that there are not any general starting points for ethics due to human difference, Russ Shafer Landau argues in his book, “The Fundamentals of Ethics” that, “there are some reasonable constraints that can guide us when thinking about how to live.”(6) One of these constraints applies to current events involving the limitation of generic drugs by name-brand companies. Landau’s argument that, “neither the law nor tradition is immune from moral criticism,”(6) illustrates the current ethical debate of whether a law restricting generic drugs is morally correct.

Collin Henry's Reading Response:"The Role of Moral Theory" pg.14-15 in The Fundamental of Ethics by Russ Shafer Landau

Russ Shafer-Landau emphasizes to readers that the role of moral theory in philosophy is to extract deeper, more generalized theories. Finding these theories would allow us, as humans, to apply them as the moral standard in more cases. Shafer-Landau argues that this is not just a want for philosophers, but is actually a built in yearning for all humans. When faced with a moral dilemma, every person digs deeper into his or her thought process to extract a universal reasoning as to why they came up with their solution. We do not want to think completely through every decision we have to make; instead, we prefer to have a universal code that makes the decision black and white.

Reading Response: "They say, I say" pg. 20-22

The authors’ of They Say, I Say believe that when constructing an argument, orally or in writing, a person should first start with “what others are saying” and then respond to this with their own ideas. The authors suggest that when doing this, the person constructing an argument should summarize what the others say as soon as possible and remind the readers or listeners of it at strategic points as they go along. The authors argue that by constructing this style of argument you a person is giving their audience a quick preview of what they are arguing, and not just drowning the audience in details right away. This advice of the authors somewhat contradicts the common advice given to writers, which is the idea that writers should start with their own thesis or claim. The authors acknowledge this contradiction and respond to it in two ways: First

Welcome to Ethical Theory!

Welcome to Jen Everett's Ethical Theory class blog.  Only students in the class may post entries or comment on posts.  However, the blog is publicly available for reading.  So invite your friends to follow our conversation.  It's sure to be a thought-provoking semester.

We're going to use this space for several purposes throughout the semester: