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 am being a bit pedantic, but
Person A: "We should question the results of a vote when it's possible that the vote has been tainted." Via a reductio, it is possible that any vote has been tainted, so therefore, we must question the results of every vote. Either this is a absurd or it is meaningless, in that it would just be more clear to say "we should question the results of all elections." Now to your question, Person B: "There is no point in questioning the results of a vote since we'd have to question the results of every vote in living memory." In one sense, they are alluding to what I had said. This means that all votes could be tainted. Their error is that just because all votes (past, present, and future) could be tainted, it doesn't follow that there is no point in questioning the results of any given vote. The general fallacy is the non-sequitur. Perhaps more specifically, this would be the Nirvana Fallacy<>. The ideal solution might very well be to question every vote in history, but since that it an impossible task (practically speaking), we can't ignore that questioning any one election would be good enough or at least an improvement. |
|||
answered on Saturday, Aug 31, 2019 10:52:36 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|||
|