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.
|
I don't see any clear fallacy with the form (X happens to everyone therefore X is not a problem), although your example might contain the nirvana fallacy (i.e., in a perfect world, all laws would affect all people equally. We do not live in such a world, therefore, let's not bother trying to make the laws better so they affect people more proportionally). There really is no argument here, so it may be premature to call fallacy. If someone claims that laws in the US disproportionately affect a group of people, the follow-up should be "so what's your point?" or perhaps the more diplomatic "Assuming that is the case, what do you suggest the goal should be?" Then, we might see if the arguer is holding to an impossible standard in some idealized society. If this is the case, the problem would be with their ignorance of the law more than with general reason. I would suspect that there is a very nuanced and domain-specific argument to be had about what it means when a law disproportionately affects people and if it is problematic. If a law is in place for murder, we know that this "disproportionately affects" men, but is this a problem with the law, or with men? We know that the crack/cocaine laws disproportionately affect people of color due to socioeconomic issues, which is far more clear that it is a problem with the law than with the group being most negatively affected. So “every law disproportionately affects people,” could be seen as a non sequitur because it is ultimately irrelevant. |
answered on Saturday, Jul 31, 2021 06:47:03 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
The argument is that because it is normal/common, it is not bad. If it was up to me I would name that fallacy appeal to normality . Unfortunately that name has been reserved for social norms only (and to be honest I find that highly misleading). I can't imagine any other name more suitable for it. Also, since the normality of something is irrelevant to its goodness and therefore to if it is troublesome or not, that argument is also non sequitur . |
answered on Sunday, Aug 01, 2021 09:58:19 AM by Kostas Oikonomou | |
Kostas Oikonomou Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|