A Study On The Philosophy Of The University State And Meeting With My Advisor For Selecting My Course

A Study On The Philosophy Of The University State And Meeting With My Advisor For Selecting My Course

Length: 1016 words (2.9 double-spaced pages)

Rating: Better Essays

Open Document

Essay Preview

While attending orientation at Texas State and meeting with my advisor for selecting my courses, I was a little unnerved to find out I had to take philosophy. I assumed we were going to discuss Aristotle for the entire semester. When the first lecture came around, I was relieved we did not have to read books about some Greek guy. I had no interest in philosophy or discussing whether man is inherently evil or not. Now that the semester is coming to a close, I realize that it was not about questioning a topic that seemed to have no answer. All the papers and discussion tasks were practice for students to learn how to disengage any argument. This course has taught me how to look for the flaws in arguments and how to come up with refutations; ultimately, this skill may come in handy, even in the pettiest arguments.
The second week of class began with a very controversial topic: animals. Everyone holds animals in different regards, which caused the riff between me and the other members in my discussion group. All 3 of us had different views. After closely listening to their argument, it made me reevaluate my own. I did not notice how easy it was for someone to break down an argument to the point where it is no longer plausible. Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases set the foundation for how I view arguments. Alastair Norcross states concrete ideas, along with rebuttals that make the paper practically indisputable. He also includes that people may argue “the suffering of factory raised animals is merely foreseen as a side-effect of a system that is a means to the gustatory pleasures of millions.” (p. 234). I believe those people are wrong, which is why I chose to discuss it for this assignment.
Throughout my high s...

... middle of paper ...

...s are at the top of the food chain and it is our instinct to hunt for animals. Since the dawn of time, cavemen hunted animals in order to survive. Even our teeth have evolved to grind the toughest pieces of meat. In addition to this, there is also a religious aspect. It is thought through Catholicism that God purposefully created animals to be consumed by humans. If that is an animal’s only purpose, then why fight for animal rights?
Society is advancing to keep up with the changing climate and population growth; it is a balancing act that is on the verge of teetering over. It is crucial for us to be cautious for the treatment of animals because they are a part of that intricate balancing act. Norcross states that “We commonly accept that even small risks of great harms are unacceptable.” (p. 233). I think it is time for society to apply that to the harm of animals.

Need Writing Help?

Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.

Check your paper »