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.
|
|
If I'm understanding your question correctly: An argument from incredulity states "I find this argument difficult to believe, therefore it is false," so the opposite of that would be "I find this argument easy to believe, therefore it's true." While it isn't quite phrased the same way, I think appeal to common sense fits pretty well. By claiming something is common sense, there's an implication that the argument is easy to believe because it's self-evident or consistent to the lived experience of most people. |
||||||||||
| answered on Monday, Mar 18, 2024 09:50:20 AM by Mr. Wednesday | |||||||||||
Mr. Wednesday Suggested These Categories |
|||||||||||
Comments |
|||||||||||
| |||||||||||