|
|
clarification about the definition of "Rights to Ought Fallacy"The definition of "Rights to Ought Fallacy" starts with: "When one gives a reason for one's rights (constitutional or other) with what one should do". I don't get it the way it is written. Is it syntactically correct? What I understand the meaning to be is something along the lines of "When one conflates one's rights with what one should do". But I can't say I understand what you meant as it is written. Can you explain? |
| asked on Sunday, May 17, 2020 09:43:32 PM by Kostas Oikonomou | |
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."
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.
|
|
It is not written well, thank you I will fix that. |
|||
| answered on Monday, May 18, 2020 06:17:56 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | ||||
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
| ||||