Taste Pleasure
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
What would be the best description for the fallacy that attempts to justify killing animals for the sake of taste pleasure?
All I'm ever able to muster up in response to this sort of reasoning is something along the lines of "Those two ideas just aren't in the same moral ballpark"
Is there such a thing as a not-in-the-same-moral-ballpark fallacy?!
Or perhaps the fallacy lies with me; I'm not sure.
Any help with this one would be great!
Answers
1This gets into morality and values. To use a non-controversial example, if one were to say that it is morally acceptable to eat babies because they are fun to chew, we can call them a psychopath, morally bankrupt, disturbed, etc., but we can't say that they committed a logical fallacy.
Just something to think about: millions of animals are killed in the processing and harvesting of vegetables and other vegan food. If a vegan ever eats a vegan dessert, or eats more than they need to for optimum health (because they enjoy the taste of the food and derive pleasure from eating), can't we say that they, too, are justifying the killing of animals for the sake of taste pleasure?
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course