Taste Pleasure

Question

Sam	Taste Pleasure What would be the best description for the fallacy that attempts to justify killing animals for the sake of taste pleasure? All I'm ever able to muster up in response to this sort of reasoning is something along the lines of "Those two ideas just aren't in the same moral ballpark" Is there such a thing as a not-in-the-same-moral-ballpark fallacy?! Or perhaps the fallacy lies with me; I'm not sure. Any help with this one would be great!
	asked on Wednesday, Dec 30, 2020 11:13:54 AM by Sam
Top Categories Suggested by Community
Comments

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

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

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

This gets into morality and values. To use a non-controversial example, if one were to say that it is morally acceptable to eat babies because they are fun to chew, we can call them a psychopath, morally bankrupt, disturbed, etc., but we can't say that they committed a logical fallacy.

Just something to think about: millions of animals are killed in the processing and harvesting of vegetables and other vegan food. If a vegan ever eats a vegan dessert, or eats more than they need to for optimum health (because they enjoy the taste of the food and derive pleasure from eating), can't we say that they, too, are justifying the killing of animals for the sake of taste pleasure?

answered on Wednesday, Dec 30, 2020 11:34:35 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments

0	Sam writes: That's a fantastic argument and I understand now how my point doesn't actually extend into logically fallacy. I'd argue in response, however, that veganism is more about minimisation than eradication. Every vegan is guilty of harming or being responsible for the death of animals. But if we can't do everything, does that really mean we should do nothing?
	posted on Friday, Jan 01, 2021 07:40:04 AM

	0	Bo Bennett, PhD writes: [To Sam] But if we can't do everything, does that really mean we should do nothing? And that is an excellent argument as well, but it is a different argument from the initial one. One can't reasonably use the argument that "killing animals for the sake of taste pleasure" is morally wrong/reprehensible without being hypocritical.
		[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Jan 01, 2021 07:51:14 AM

1	Sam writes: Unless it's a criticism of one's own actions as well, perhaps? I'm definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel here. You make some excellent points and I have plenty of food for thought. Thanks, Bo!
	posted on Friday, Jan 01, 2021 08:14:37 AM

	0	Bo Bennett, PhD writes: [To Sam] Unless it's a criticism of one's own actions as well, perhaps? Correct. Also, if the Vegan really does never eat more than necessary because of taste, or if the vegan carefully grows all their own food ensuring no animals are killed, etc.
		[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Jan 01, 2021 08:29:53 AM

0	Sam writes: Of course. And now we're branching into the realms of Jainism and such. The question then becomes at what point does convenience trump morality? When is preventing harming animals too much to ask to? When are we allowed to make that distinction? If only I had the answers!
	posted on Friday, Jan 01, 2021 08:35:26 AM

	0	Bo Bennett, PhD writes: [To Sam] Your wish is granted :) I actually wrote a whole book about this... the morality around eating meat: https://www.sentiocentrism.com
		[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Jan 01, 2021 08:37:06 AM

Sam writes:

Amazing!

Straight on the wishlist!

The quote on the link you sent is so well put: "What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?"

Reminds me of that brilliant Bentham quote: "It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

I'll certainly read that book.

posted on Friday, Jan 01, 2021 08:43:25 AM