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 have never heard of something like this before, so I would just assume a non-sequitur(it simply does not follow that because X is bad then Y is good). |
answered on Thursday, Apr 13, 2017 06:45:55 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
Could this be a variation of Appeal to Desperation?
- X is bad - something must be done - Y is not X, - assuming Y is better than X Therefore, Y must be done. |
answered on Friday, Apr 14, 2017 12:52:16 AM by JK |
Comments |
|
|
This should be a fallacy, perhaps its own fallacy. It is the central fallacy of 'humanitarian' war, where the 'good' intervention kills way more people than the 'bad' leader.
Seems similar to a false dichotomy, but not quite. |
answered on Sunday, May 12, 2019 02:57:48 PM by JK |
Comments |
|
|
I think it depends on what X and Y are.
1. Fallacy of bifurcation or taking it to the extremes: Overeating is bad. Therefore starvation is good. 2. Appeal to common belief: A lot of people believe that eating a banana a day is bad. Therefore not doing that is good. 3. Fallacy of equivocation and negating the antecedent: Not doing your homework is bad. Therefore, because Jimmy does his homework, his grades are good. 4. Ad Hominem circumstantial: The entrepreneur said that not donating money to his non-profit is bad. Therefore not donating money to his non-profit is good. 5. Fallacy of Ambiguity (example 3 also fits this one): What Mary did is bad. She shouldn't have arrived that late. Therefore, it is good that she finishes her dinner first. Explanations: 1. This one offers only two choices; overeating and starvation. I would dare to say that a true healthy life-style is somewhere in the middle. 3. The first part refers to building a bad habit. Perhaps Jimmy is taking a class were the assignments are not required but suggested. The second part uses the word 'bad' as in the sense of performance. If we interpret, however, the first part as not doing your homework gets you bad grades, then this fallacy becomes the fallacy of negating the antecedent. 4. One could say that the entrepreneur has vested interest in people donating money to his non-profit organization and thus what he said is false. 5. The fact that Mary arrived late is bad might mean many things. Perhaps she has school tomorrow or just making a bad habit. Maybe she does finishes her dinner first. |
answered on Tuesday, May 14, 2019 08:23:09 PM by Jorge |
Comments |
|
|
New/Old 'Fallacy': "Nonsense" a declaration of a difference without a distinction. Depending who, when, where, and how such a statement is being heard it may not fulfill #3 criteria of a Logical Fallacy. That is, the average person may not be deceived by such nonsense.
|
answered on Thursday, May 16, 2019 12:48:02 AM by Steven Hobbs |
Comments |
|
|
Why wouldn't this be considered an extreme application of the either-or fallacy? Or as
Dr. Bo categorizes them under Affirming a disjunct: "(also known as: the fallacy of the alternative disjunct, false exclusionary disjunct, affirming one disjunct, the fallacy of the alternative syllogism, asserting an alternative, improper disjunctive syllogism, fallacy of the disjunctive syllogism) New Terminology: Disjunction: A proposition of the "either/or" form, which is true if one or both of its propositional components is true; otherwise, it is false. Disjunct: One of the propositional components of a disjunction. Description: Making the false assumption that when presented with an either/or possibility, that if one of the options is true that the other one must be false. This is when the “or” is not explicitly defined as being exclusive. This fallacy is similar to the unwarranted contrast fallacy. Logical Forms: P or Q. P. Therefore, not Q. P or Q. Q. Therefore, not P. Example #1: I can’t stop eating these chocolates. I really love chocolate, or I seriously lack willpower. I know I really love chocolate; therefore, I cannot lack willpower. Explanation: Ignoring the possible false dilemma, the fact that one really loves chocolate does not automatically exclude the other possibility of lacking willpower. Example #2: I am going to bed or watching TV. I am exhausted, so I will go to bed; therefore, I cannot watch TV. Explanation: It is logically and physically possible to go to bed and watch TV at the same time, I know that for a fact as I do it just about every night. The “or” does not logically exclude the option that is not chosen. Exception: If the choices are mutually exclusive (either by necessity or indicated by the word "either"), then it can be deduced that the other choice must be false. Again, we are working under the assumption that one of the choices we are given represents the truth. Today is either Monday or Sunday. It is Monday. Therefore, it is not Sunday. In formal logic, the above is referred to as a valid disjunctive syllogism. References: Kilgore, W. J. (1979). An introductory logic. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. |
answered on Thursday, May 16, 2019 11:47:01 AM by mchasewalker |
Comments |
|
|
To me, it suggests a false dichotomy, even if it doesn't explicitly present the two as the only options. It also assumes that the two are actually opposites, which might not be true even if they really were the only options,
|
answered on Thursday, Jun 20, 2019 08:27:24 AM by B.W. |
Comments |
|