Question

...
G

Which fallacy is this?

The other day I was arguing with a Christian about God and he said that to define right, we need to first know what is wrong. And it struck me in the head and I think it is a fallacious statement.
asked on Sunday, Jun 18, 2017 12:07:13 AM by G

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."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

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.

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

...
skips777
0
Well. I'm not sure if their reasoning is fallacious because essentially right and wrong have to coexist. What I mean by that is if everything were "right", for example, people would not need to assign a distinction to them and vice versa. Another example would be if every animal were female there wouldn't be a need to distinguish between male and female so the terms wouldn't exist. So maybe they are saying it based on needing a distinction. They may also be saying that God is the authority on right and wrong so they believe that the basis for them knowing right and wrong must first be established by God. It's really hard to assume what they may mean. And there's also the possibility I have absolutely no idea what the hell I'm talking about.
answered on Sunday, Jun 18, 2017 04:24:09 AM by skips777

Comments
...
Bo Bennett, PhD
0

I see no direct fallacy, but it borders on many, especially depending where this conversation is headed.

Why not "to define wrong, we need to first know what is right?" One can argue that this is an example of Circular Reasoning . This is a case where we have two opposites, let's say A and Z. Together, they make up a single concept. What we are really asking is to define the concept. Without knowing the concept, we cannot properly define A or Z. If we can't know what is Z, then we can't know what is A. If we can't know what is A, we can't know what is Z, and we're screwed.

What's "wrong"?
The opposite of "right."
What's right?
The opposite of "wrong."

Let's suppose we play this game and do as the person suggests and define "right" based on what we know about "wrong." What we end up with is the appearance of understanding, but actually a. Morality is perhaps the #1 concept that very few people understand yet pretend to, so they try to define it with examples (e.g., "It's wrong to torture a baby for fun."). By Appeal to Extremes , we once again give the illusion that we know what we are talking about, yet without an understanding of the concept itself, we are lost when it comes to determining right or wrong in more moderate cases.
answered on Sunday, Jun 18, 2017 05:35:31 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments