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.
|
No your reasoning does not contain a fallacy, it contains a gamble. A much fuller answer would derive from game theory. For example I found this background article: Vaccination and the theory of games<>, but there are many others. Also in the absence of more information we are entitled to believe you are talking about standard childhood vaccinations and a standard child :-), and then your gamble has moral implications as others have pointed out. However if your school is insisting on non-standard vaccinations owing to a local outbreak of an unusual disease, or if your child has certain medical conditions, then those moral implications reduce, disappear, or even turn around the other way. Yes there is a moral dimension but no there is not a fallacy.
|
answered on Tuesday, Nov 06, 2018 04:14:39 PM by Colin P |
Comments |
|