|
|
What Fallacy is thisPerson A commits an indiscretion. When called on the indiscretion, person A excuses his action because person B did the same.
|
| asked on Tuesday, Jul 28, 2020 12:52:37 PM by Senior Master Sergeant | |
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.
|
|
Sounds like the Ad Hominem (Tu quoque) . |
| answered on Tuesday, Jul 28, 2020 12:59:01 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
Logical form: Person A did X. X is considered wrong. X is not wrong in this case because person B also did X. If something is wrong, then it's...wrong. Another person doing it does not alter the nature of the action itself; it simply means that two people have now committed wrong. So if it was wrong when person B did it, it is wrong when person A does it too. This is the logical fallacy of Ad Hominem (Tu quoque); a common fallacy of relevance used to change the conversation from one's wrongdoing to another's wrongdoing. |
| answered on Tuesday, Jul 28, 2020 05:01:03 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
