1 00:00:00,012 --> 00:00:07,357 Of all the topics the students wrote in about, the one that they touched on most 2 00:00:07,357 --> 00:00:13,392 often was vegetarianism, whether or not it's wrong to eat meat. 3 00:00:13,392 --> 00:00:20,810 Lots of these arguments were extremely interesting, on both sides, but we wanted 4 00:00:20,810 --> 00:00:24,961 to pick one to reflect that student interest. 5 00:00:24,961 --> 00:00:29,701 So here's an argument by Gizelle Rush from South Africa. 6 00:00:29,701 --> 00:00:33,738 The title is Save the World, One Steak at a Time. 7 00:00:33,739 --> 00:00:38,016 You gotta like that. Meat eating can be bad for your health. 8 00:00:38,016 --> 00:00:43,751 It has been conclusively linked to heart disease, cancers, and other maladies. 9 00:00:43,751 --> 00:00:49,752 It's also unhealthy for our planet. Many meat production facilities Farms is a 10 00:00:49,752 --> 00:00:56,025 completely misleading term. Our enormous monocultures providing ideal 11 00:00:56,025 --> 00:01:00,746 breeding grounds for diseases like BSE and Avian Flu. 12 00:01:00,746 --> 00:01:08,038 Bse is Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. They emit tons of chemical pollution and 13 00:01:08,038 --> 00:01:12,916 greenhouse gases while using vast quantities of land. 14 00:01:12,916 --> 00:01:18,190 Water and nutrients to produce only a tenth of the plant based food that would 15 00:01:18,190 --> 00:01:22,996 require those same resources. Levels of meat consumption are rising 16 00:01:22,996 --> 00:01:27,105 around the globe when clearly the opposite would be better. 17 00:01:27,105 --> 00:01:30,895 Eat less meat, not just for yourself but for the world. 18 00:01:30,895 --> 00:01:36,016 One thing that's great about this argument is its clear structure. 19 00:01:36,016 --> 00:01:41,692 The first bit tells you about the effects of eating meat on your own personal 20 00:01:41,692 --> 00:01:45,525 health. Then the next bits are about the effect of 21 00:01:45,525 --> 00:01:50,306 eating meat on the health of the world and makes three points. 22 00:01:50,306 --> 00:01:57,491 That the kinds of farms that we depend on spread diseases that affect us. 23 00:01:57,491 --> 00:02:04,868 It pollutes our environment, and it produces greenhouse gases that affect 24 00:02:04,868 --> 00:02:09,965 global warming. Now, the weakness is that many of these 25 00:02:09,965 --> 00:02:14,340 premises need to be supported by a lot more facts. 26 00:02:14,340 --> 00:02:19,974 One student, Gary Shakar, made this point in the discussion forum and cited some 27 00:02:19,974 --> 00:02:23,460 studies to back up some of Gizelle's claim. 28 00:02:23,461 --> 00:02:28,653 Gizelle wrote this response. My original argument included all sorts of 29 00:02:28,653 --> 00:02:34,254 studies, as well as things about possible ethical concerns around meat eating. 30 00:02:34,254 --> 00:02:37,714 But even in bullet form, I had over 300 words. 31 00:02:37,714 --> 00:02:42,745 So I had to trim it down, radically. Well that's our fault. 32 00:02:42,745 --> 00:02:49,483 We never should have expected you to address these worldwide issues that are so 33 00:02:49,483 --> 00:02:55,013 complex, in only 100 words. But remember, that you need to learn to 34 00:02:55,013 --> 00:03:01,512 formulate your arguments very quickly, because rarely will you have people who 35 00:03:01,512 --> 00:03:06,806 are willing to listen endlessly while you spell out the details. 36 00:03:06,806 --> 00:03:12,909 So it's a real skill and a valuable skill to be able to trim your aruguments down to 37 00:03:12,909 --> 00:03:16,728 a 100 words. But when you do, it's always useful to 38 00:03:16,728 --> 00:03:22,160 have other people on your side. And as I said, many students submitted 39 00:03:22,160 --> 00:03:27,873 arguments for and against meat eating. So, let's look at one more example. 40 00:03:27,873 --> 00:03:33,987 Alexander submitted this argument. Sentient animals are similar to us in some 41 00:03:33,987 --> 00:03:38,750 significant ways. It says that they have nervous systems and 42 00:03:38,750 --> 00:03:43,746 some conscious awareness. The principle of equal consideration of 43 00:03:43,746 --> 00:03:48,613 interest guides us to treat all affected parties as if they were equal. 44 00:03:48,613 --> 00:03:54,208 Animals are often treated as if they were machines in both factory farms and family 45 00:03:54,208 --> 00:03:57,942 farms, where they're routinely caused immense harm. 46 00:03:57,942 --> 00:04:04,312 We ought not to cause unnecessary harm to animals because pain is pain regardless of 47 00:04:04,312 --> 00:04:08,491 species or magnitude, which is generally a bad thing. 48 00:04:08,491 --> 00:04:15,977 So we ought to embrace a vegetarian diet because it minimizes unnecessary harm to 49 00:04:15,977 --> 00:04:19,577 animals. Now what I want to do is compare 50 00:04:19,577 --> 00:04:23,846 Alexander's argument to Gizelle's argument. 51 00:04:23,846 --> 00:04:30,074 They agree we should eat less meat, but they give different reasons for it. 52 00:04:30,074 --> 00:04:36,320 And Gizelle is very helpful not only in providing in the forums a list of all the 53 00:04:36,320 --> 00:04:43,736 different arguments regarding meat eating. But also in outlining the different 54 00:04:43,736 --> 00:04:47,592 reasons that people give against eating meat. 55 00:04:47,592 --> 00:04:52,679 Here's her comment. The anti meat group base their arguments 56 00:04:52,679 --> 00:04:58,692 on a desire to make the world better. First, less environmental damage. 57 00:04:58,692 --> 00:05:04,716 Second, better health outcomes. Third, more equity and food security. 58 00:05:04,716 --> 00:05:09,478 Fourth, less unethical or immoral treatment of animals. 59 00:05:09,478 --> 00:05:16,527 Those are the reasons that people gave in the various arguments against eating meat. 60 00:05:16,527 --> 00:05:22,362 Alexander focused on the fourth reason regarding the treatment of animals, and 61 00:05:22,362 --> 00:05:28,365 Giselle focused on the first two reasons regarding personal health and the health 62 00:05:28,365 --> 00:05:30,945 of the world. So what are we going to do? 63 00:05:30,945 --> 00:05:34,845 We even got a bunch of different reasons for one conclusion. 64 00:05:34,845 --> 00:05:39,635 Well, one possibility is to use them all, the more arguments, the better. 65 00:05:39,636 --> 00:05:42,976 And then, you could put them in a branching structure. 66 00:05:42,976 --> 00:05:47,742 Remember in week 3, we talked about the difference between branching structures 67 00:05:47,742 --> 00:05:52,968 and joint structures an linear structures? And if these are independent reasons, it's 68 00:05:52,968 --> 00:05:57,157 going to be a branching structure instead of a joint structure or a linear 69 00:05:57,157 --> 00:06:00,953 structure. And we could try to use a larger argument 70 00:06:00,953 --> 00:06:07,117 with a branching structure that employs all of these reasons at once, that would 71 00:06:07,117 --> 00:06:12,821 be one possibility, and that's a nice strategy, but there's a problem, because 72 00:06:12,821 --> 00:06:18,341 there are differences between these different kinds of reasons and the 73 00:06:18,341 --> 00:06:23,851 different kinds of arguments that are given by Giselle and Alexander. 74 00:06:23,851 --> 00:06:29,831 The first big difference is that Alexander argues for a stronger conclusion. 75 00:06:29,831 --> 00:06:35,975 He argues that we ought to be vegetarian, but eat no meat at all, whereas Giselle 76 00:06:35,975 --> 00:06:40,472 argues for a weaker conclusion, we ought to eat less meat. 77 00:06:40,472 --> 00:06:45,810 And it's easier to argue for weak conclusion than for a strong conclusion, 78 00:06:45,810 --> 00:06:50,568 because after all, there are a lot of different kinds of animals. 79 00:06:50,568 --> 00:06:56,118 And if you're going to say we should eat no animals at all, you've got to cover 80 00:06:56,118 --> 00:06:59,330 them all. But if you say we ought to eat less meat 81 00:06:59,330 --> 00:07:04,178 then there's not as much to prove, and sometimes that's a good strategy. 82 00:07:04,178 --> 00:07:09,148 I one of my favorite books is Ethics into Action by Peter Singer, which is about 83 00:07:09,148 --> 00:07:13,966 Henry Spira, who started the animal rights movement, or is one of the people who 84 00:07:13,966 --> 00:07:18,857 started the animal rights movement, and a large part of the book is about the role 85 00:07:18,857 --> 00:07:22,786 of compromise. And whether it makes more sense when your 86 00:07:22,786 --> 00:07:26,051 in a social movement to ask people to be purists. 87 00:07:26,051 --> 00:07:30,731 Don't eat any meat at all, or to compromise, and say eat less, and that 88 00:07:30,731 --> 00:07:34,701 will help animals even if it's not the perfect thing to do. 89 00:07:34,701 --> 00:07:39,827 So that's always a difficult issue of strategy, whenever your trying change 90 00:07:39,827 --> 00:07:43,621 peoples minds. And it's interesting here that Giselle 91 00:07:43,621 --> 00:07:46,905 goes one way, and Alexander goes the other way. 92 00:07:46,905 --> 00:07:52,059 For our purposes, the point is when the conclusion is weaker, then the argument 93 00:07:52,059 --> 00:07:56,973 can provide more reason for that conclusion simply because the conclusion 94 00:07:56,973 --> 00:08:01,245 doesn't claim as much. So Gizelle's conclusion that you ought to 95 00:08:01,245 --> 00:08:06,705 eat less meat is easier to arugue for than Alexander's conclusion, that you ought to 96 00:08:06,705 --> 00:08:11,062 eat no meat at all. These arugments also appeal to very 97 00:08:11,062 --> 00:08:16,182 differnt premises. Alexanda bases his whole arugment on the 98 00:08:16,182 --> 00:08:22,782 principle of the equal consideration of interests which guides us to treat all 99 00:08:22,782 --> 00:08:28,637 affected parties as if they were equal. Now that's a very strong premise. 100 00:08:28,637 --> 00:08:34,011 And some people are going to accept it, sure, but other people are going to deny 101 00:08:34,011 --> 00:08:37,430 it, and they might deny it on several grounds. 102 00:08:37,430 --> 00:08:42,830 First, they might say it doesn't really apply to animals cus animals are so 103 00:08:42,830 --> 00:08:48,974 different from us in so many respects. After all, Alexander's first sentence in 104 00:08:48,974 --> 00:08:55,019 his own argument says, sentient animals are similar to us in some significant 105 00:08:55,019 --> 00:08:58,488 ways. Sure some, but that's compatible with 106 00:08:58,488 --> 00:09:03,318 saying they're different in lots of other significant ways. 107 00:09:03,318 --> 00:09:08,397 And so you might say, I'll buy your principle, but it doesn't apply to 108 00:09:08,397 --> 00:09:12,052 animals. We should only treat things equally when 109 00:09:12,052 --> 00:09:16,191 they're equal in all respects, not just in some respects. 110 00:09:16,191 --> 00:09:21,311 But another response is to say, I'm not going to buy that principle at all. 111 00:09:21,311 --> 00:09:27,073 Maybe you think that animals do feel pain, or at least, many animals feel pain. 112 00:09:27,074 --> 00:09:34,104 Pain and that pain is similar to our pain but that doesn't mean we have to treat 113 00:09:34,104 --> 00:09:38,829 them the same. Maybe we can do medical experiments on 114 00:09:38,829 --> 00:09:46,074 animals, at least some animals, say, maybe mice or oysters, and not be allowed to do 115 00:09:46,074 --> 00:09:50,401 the same kinds of medical experiments on humans. 116 00:09:50,401 --> 00:09:56,446 So that's another way to respond to the principle, to say, actually, that 117 00:09:56,446 --> 00:10:02,178 priniciple of equal treatment, when we're equal in respect of pain. 118 00:10:02,178 --> 00:10:05,442 It's not a good principle and we ought to reject it. 119 00:10:05,442 --> 00:10:10,307 Now I'm not saying the principle is false. Right, Alexander accepts it, a lot of 120 00:10:10,307 --> 00:10:14,052 people accept it. My point is simply, that when you appeal 121 00:10:14,052 --> 00:10:18,980 to a principle that has such radical implications, and that other people are 122 00:10:18,980 --> 00:10:23,985 not going to apply to the situation in the same way or might reject entirely, then 123 00:10:23,985 --> 00:10:27,418 your argument is not going to reach as many people. 124 00:10:27,418 --> 00:10:32,104 Your audience is not going to be as wide, your arguments not going to be as 125 00:10:32,104 --> 00:10:36,021 persuasive. It still might justify, and might give the 126 00:10:36,021 --> 00:10:41,955 best reason for the strong conclusion that you want to reach, but a lot of people are 127 00:10:41,955 --> 00:10:47,752 going to find it very questionable. And I wanted to raise this point largely 128 00:10:47,752 --> 00:10:54,852 because it contrasts with Giselle's own premises, because what does Giselle appeal 129 00:10:54,852 --> 00:10:57,901 to? She appeals to personal health. 130 00:10:57,901 --> 00:11:02,533 She says, if you eat meat, it's going to create diseases. 131 00:11:02,534 --> 00:11:07,173 Well, everybody wants to be healthy. And then she says, and if you eat meat, 132 00:11:07,173 --> 00:11:11,657 there tends to be more factory farming, and that's going to pollute the 133 00:11:11,657 --> 00:11:16,961 environment and create global warming. But everybody wants the environment to be 134 00:11:16,961 --> 00:11:21,905 good because we all have to live in it. Not everybody's willing to sacrifice for 135 00:11:21,905 --> 00:11:26,937 the environment or to work to make sure the environment doesn't get degraded, but 136 00:11:26,937 --> 00:11:31,821 everybody cares about the environment because they and their children have to 137 00:11:31,821 --> 00:11:35,141 live in it. So one advantage of Giselle's argument is 138 00:11:35,141 --> 00:11:39,741 that she appeals to a premise, that, is going to be much more widely accepted. 139 00:11:39,741 --> 00:11:43,908 Course she still has to show that meat eating has those effects on the 140 00:11:43,908 --> 00:11:48,144 environment and on health. We already talked about that and the need 141 00:11:48,144 --> 00:11:52,272 for more studies. But if she can make that premise apply, 142 00:11:52,272 --> 00:11:57,762 then at least it's going to be a premise that fewer people in her audience are 143 00:11:57,762 --> 00:12:02,356 going to reject. So, Giselle's argument has two really nice 144 00:12:02,356 --> 00:12:06,164 features. First, it has a weak conclusion, that's 145 00:12:06,164 --> 00:12:11,243 going to be easier to support. And second, it appeals to premises that 146 00:12:11,243 --> 00:12:12,676 are. Widely accepted. 147 00:12:12,676 --> 00:12:17,466 But still you might say it's not enough. It might not be enough because you want to 148 00:12:17,466 --> 00:12:21,626 reach the stronger conclusion that we ought not to eat any meat at all. 149 00:12:21,626 --> 00:12:25,832 And you also might think that the real reason why we shouldn't eat meat is 150 00:12:25,832 --> 00:12:30,251 because we care about animals, not just because we care about ourselves. 151 00:12:30,251 --> 00:12:35,947 And you also might want to add in more arguments to reach more people, because a 152 00:12:35,947 --> 00:12:40,837 single argument is always going to have people who don't follow it. 153 00:12:40,837 --> 00:12:45,966 And by using multiple arguments you might be able to reach more people. 154 00:12:45,966 --> 00:12:50,960 So it's a real question of strategy whether you want to add additional 155 00:12:50,960 --> 00:12:53,925 arguments. The more arguments you add, the more 156 00:12:53,925 --> 00:12:58,410 objections your opponents can raise because they can point out weaknesses in 157 00:12:58,410 --> 00:13:03,378 some of your arguments and that's going to make your overall position less persuasive 158 00:13:03,378 --> 00:13:07,212 because people found flaws. If you stick to one argument there are 159 00:13:07,212 --> 00:13:09,789 less flaws but you might reach fewer people. 160 00:13:09,789 --> 00:13:12,318 Because they might not accept your premises. 161 00:13:12,318 --> 00:13:16,850 And there's real strategy questions there, depending on the context, on the audience, 162 00:13:16,850 --> 00:13:19,694 and there are no general principles I can tell you now. 163 00:13:19,694 --> 00:13:22,708 But notice that at this point what are we talking about? 164 00:13:22,708 --> 00:13:27,422 We're talking about persuasion, right? We're talking about how many people are 165 00:13:27,422 --> 00:13:32,392 going to bee persuaded by the argument or convinced because they accept the premises 166 00:13:32,392 --> 00:13:35,436 and care about the values that are being mentioned. 167 00:13:35,436 --> 00:13:38,341 And persuasion is different from justification. 168 00:13:38,341 --> 00:13:43,439 Both of these arguments might perfectly well justify the conclusion by giving a 169 00:13:43,439 --> 00:13:48,867 good reason to accept the conclusion. The differences, however, suggest that 170 00:13:48,867 --> 00:13:54,817 Giselle's, by being a weaker conclusion and more widely accepted premises, will be 171 00:13:54,817 --> 00:13:59,723 more persuasive. And now you have to ask yourself whether 172 00:13:59,723 --> 00:14:07,320 your purpose in presenting the argument is to persuade more people or to justify your 173 00:14:07,320 --> 00:14:11,001 belief. And that's up to you.