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.
|
The argument strikes me as invalid because the syllogism commits an illicit minor and then repeats itself
in the conclusion thereby violating the rules of proper syllogism. The 8 rules of syllogism are as follow: There should only be three terms in the syllogism, namely: the major term, the minor term, and the middle term. And the meaning of the middle term in the first premise should not be changed in the second premise; otherwise, the syllogism will have 4 terms. The major and the minor terms should only be universal in the conclusion if they are universal in the premises. In other words, if the major and the minor terms are universal in the conclusion, then they must also be universal in the premises for the argument to be valid. Hence, if the major and minor terms are particular in the conclusion, then rule #2 is not applicable. The middle term must be universal at least once. Or, at least one of the middle terms must be universal. If the premises are affirmative, then the conclusion must be affirmative. If one premise is affirmative and the other negative, then the conclusion must be negative. The argument is invalid whenever the premises are both negative. This is because we cannot draw a valid conclusion from two negative premises. One premise at least must be universal. If one premise is particular, then the conclusion must be particular. https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/11/26/rules-of-syllogism/<> |
answered on Thursday, Jun 27, 2019 11:10:31 AM by mchasewalker |
Comments |
|
|
I don't see a fallacy.
A is true B is true A and B are both true is true. |
answered on Tuesday, Jul 02, 2019 06:58:45 PM by DrBill |
Comments |
|