Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
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.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
So, I think what you've done here isn't describing a specific fallacy, but describing a use case of logical fallacies. Backing up a little bit, a logical fallacy is generally defined as an argument which is constructed in a way that appears valid, but the premises do not prove the conclusion. So, deceptive premises and distorted conclusions are a common feature among all logical fallacies. The presence of a fallacy should be judged by the argument itself. It is pretty common for people to use fallacies when they intend to deceive someone, but it's also common for people who believe they are correct and just aren't skilled at constructing arguments to use them as well. Certain audiences may be more receptive to a fallacious argument. However, the logic of the argument itself doesn't change whether you're writing it in your personal journal or broadcasting it to a national audience. I will agree with the bot that, in the example provided, the speaker is using the cherry picking fallacy. There are plenty of examples of politicians and public figures doing what you're describing, using some already existing fallacy. |
answered on Tuesday, Jan 30, 2024 12:05:31 PM by Mr. Wednesday | |
Mr. Wednesday Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|