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.
|
See Dr. Bo's Fallacies of Composition or Division aka Part-to-whole or whole-to-part fallacies.
|
answered on Sunday, Dec 02, 2018 08:53:07 PM by mchasewalker |
Comments |
|
|
Since some errors in reasoning can be classified into many fallacies, I think the one you mentioned is an ad hominem (guilt by association)<> and also can be considered as a false equivalence<>
|
answered on Sunday, Dec 02, 2018 08:55:56 PM by Abdulazeez |
Comments |
|
|
There are two significant problems with this argument. The first is use of the term "attack." It can be reasonably assumed that the arguer is referring to physical attacks on journalists of the dictators. In the second use of the word "attack" the arguer is specifically referring to "attacks on opinion," which quite different from chopping a journalist into pieces or similar (the implied use of "attack" by dictators). This is the equivocation fallacy<>. |
answered on Monday, Dec 03, 2018 07:02:15 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|