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 writer expresses one opinion, but there is evidence for other foundations for moral beliefs.
DeWaal argues that morality is biological. He is very persuasive (I've heard him speak). Link: www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPOR. . . Others hold that morality is founded in group membership. I don't see why that is automatically wrong. None of that means that morality can be rejected. The idea that morals must either be totally absolute or totally relative is a false dilemma, which is a classic fallacy. |
answered on Thursday, Jul 25, 2019 01:26:00 PM by Bill |
Comments |
|
|
No Logical fallacy is present; this is merely an opinion.
|
answered on Thursday, Jul 25, 2019 02:19:06 PM by modelerr |
Comments |
|