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.
|
Supporters of group B would be committing a textbook Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) IF they are implying that the claims are false because of the vendetta. We might be justified in saying that the vendetta accusation is a non-sequitur, but they may come back and say that it is very relevant to the argument since heavy bias could distort the "facts." This would be reasonable for group B. It really comes down to what is being implied; are they implying all the claims are false or should not be investigated, or that they are more likely to be false given the strong biases involved? If the former, it is fallacious. If the latter, perfectly reasonable. |
answered on Thursday, Aug 10, 2017 06:41:50 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|