My philosophy paper: vegetarianism vs. atkins diet?

Question

i am taking an intro. philosophy class, and for my argument paper i chose this topic. in the intro i explained about the atkins diet and then asks the question, is it wrong to eat meat for the sake of losing weight. then i go into detail about farming methods for cows, chickens and pigs. after that i gave arguements both for and against animal rights. then i wrote a paragraph on the soy zone, by barry sears, as an alternative to atkins.

for my conclusion i stated that it is a personal choice how much we want to change our lifestyle for the sake of animal welfare, and that making small changes is a step in the right direction (ie: shop for organic/free range meat, cut down on eating meat). i also said that animal rights can have a snowball effect, one cause leading into the other, and often with no end in sight.

i let a few people read it and they say my conclusion needs to be stronger. how do i make it stronger, and are they right about it being weak?

thanks!

Answer 1

"Any paper on philosophy must contain the elements of epistemological principles applied to metaphysical existents"

That is garbage. However, I have to agree with the general concern. I'm not sure that this qualifies as a philosophy paper, even in intro. But then I'm not teaching the class.

I would suggest that if your teacher has mentioned any ethical theory (and I feel certain that he has) then you appeal to that in your ethical discussion. I mean specifically, e.g. I imagine he's discussed Kant, Plato, and Mill. Any of those can be used to argue the ethics of vegetarianism.

Huge warning. Intro to logic (which you ought to take too) will come quite quickly to informal fallacies, one of which is 'the slippery slope fallacy', which is exactly what you have committed with your snowball argument. (you can google slippery slope fallacy for a more full explanation). I'll bet that people who think your conclusion is weak are subconsciously picking up on this fallacious element. Remove it, and it will appear stronger. A strong 'conclusion' is about style, not content. Your essay contained the elements of your argument, your conclusion is merely to ease the reader out or slap him in the face.

EDIT EDIT...

I didn't mean that YOUR topic didn't seem to be philosophical. I meant that the assignement didn't sound right. But I didn't take intro to philosophy because I'm THAT arrogant.

The additional information is useful, it sounds perfect.

Answer 2

this paper sounds hard to swallow...especially when on Atkins

Answer 3

The philosophical component to your paper is whether or not it is ethical to use animals -- in this case for a personal goal.

I would consider focusing on the ethical reasons "against" eating meeting and the killing of animals -- such as the Utilitarian and Rights perspective. You could balance this with the ethical reasons for using animals.

Then when you form your conclusion it will be based on an ethical issue which is a philosophical concern.

Answer 4

For your conclusion restate the thesis from your introduction paragraph and explain again why vegetarianism is better than the atkins diet.

Than after that sentence explain the benefits of vegetarianism (in brief) and conclude that we would all benefit from a vegetarian diet to lose weight because not only are we losing excesses pounds, we're gaining a better environment for green living.

  

Hope that helps.

Good topic by the way.

Answer 5

Any paper on philosophy must contain the elements of epistemological principles applied to metaphysical existents. I don't see that you do that. I don't see that your veg. vs. atkins has anything at all to do with philosophy.

If your teacher accepts this, it proves why philosophy is so screwed up today--but that is your teacher's fault, not yours.