Fallacy?

1. There is no reason to love someone who doesn't love you back.

2. Mother loves her children but children doesn't love her.

3. Therefore mother shouldn't love their children

asked on Sunday, Jul 25, 2021 08:30:59 AM by Lynx Ssss

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

1	Rationalissimus of the Elenchus writes: P1) could be considered two wrongs make a right (the fallacy) but this is informal and to do with premises. As far as formal logic goes, this is a valid argument (but as aforementioned, not really sound because the premises are questionable).
	posted on Sunday, Jul 25, 2021 11:17:48 AM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

Bo Bennett, PhD 2	No fallacy. Of course, premise 1 is debatable.
	answered on Sunday, Jul 25, 2021 08:43:35 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories
Comments

Ekadh Singh 1	There is no reason to love someone who doesn’t love you back: There is no evidence to back this up, and it is likely a matter of opinion. However, even when assuming it’s true, the argument still falls apart Mother loves her children but her children don’t love her: This is not true in every situation, but it may be true in some. Let’s assume this question refers to those situations Therefore mother shouldn’t love their children: This is incorrect, because point one states “there is no reason to” and not “it is bad to” and it does not state (or prove) loving somebody who doesn’t love you back is bad, it simply says it isn’t good. Therefore, a this conclusion conflates ”not good” and “bad”
	answered on Monday, Jul 26, 2021 07:22:59 PM by Ekadh Singh
Ekadh Singh Suggested These Categories
Comments

Arlo 1	Aside from what others have mentioned, we have elements of the ambiguity fallacy from implicitly redefining terms leading to a non sequitur wherein we jump from having no reason for doing something to being advised against it. If we accept the premises as true, P1 talks about there being no reason to love someone in a given situation and P2 describes the situation occurring. The logical conclusion from these two premises would be that the mother has no reason to love her children ... not that she shouldn't.
	answered on Monday, Jul 26, 2021 10:19:50 AM by Arlo
Arlo Suggested These Categories
Comments

Mchasewalker 1	1. There is no reason to love someone who doesn't love you back. This is an opinion and not an error in deceptive reasoning. Moreover, one might argue that the claim asserts itself from a state of ignorance because it seems woefully unaware of the volumes of music, literature, philosophy, religion, and transactional psychology that argue otherwise. Ultimately and individually one might dismiss those reasons but to claim they don't exist is a false premise. 2. Mother loves her children but children doesn't (sic) love her. This has been proven true in the annals of mental disorders (sociopathology), matricide, and domestic abuse, etc. It's much too complex and subjective of an issue to generalize. One might comfortably assert: Most mothers love their children, but some children do not share that emotion And not be in error. 3. Therefore mother shouldn't love their children. This is clearly a hasty generalization.
	answered on Sunday, Jul 25, 2021 11:38:50 AM by Mchasewalker
Mchasewalker Suggested These Categories
Comments