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 would think that most people fight laws they fully don't understand. Because of motivated reasoning, they don't want to fully understand. This is an example of poor reasoning. However, it is problematic for a governing body to enact a law and not give reason for it, rather just say "go away and think." That is like saying a good reason exists, but you are just not smart enough to understand/see it. Kind of like claiming that Jesus/Allah/Krishna, etc. exists, but only if you have to have enough faith to experience him. Or that I am the best-looking guy in the world, but you need to have really good taste in human aesthetics to see it. This can be classified as a form of a Self-Sealing Argument , since no evidence can be brought against it. |
answered on Thursday, Sep 03, 2015 12:30:22 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|