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.
|
It appears to Logic Chopping . You are correct that statement 2 does not invalidate statement 1. You did not claim that the forest "takes up carbon dioxide" you said it was "important for taking carbon dioxide out of the air." You can play the game of pedantics as well :) If there is a reason for the clarification, then this would be acceptable, like if there were a forest of dead trees it is important to know that this wouldn't help much with carbon dioxide (assuming it wouldn't - not my area). So it could be unnecessary precision (logic chopping) or perhaps necessary clarification depending on the context. |
answered on Wednesday, Sep 04, 2019 08:05:39 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|