Im writing a script for a future video, and I can't figure out which specific fallacy to point out in the following argument. The subject of my video argues that its not any more wrong for us to eat animals as it is wrong for a lion to kill its prey. What fallacy is this? Would this be an example of the Tu Quoque Fallacy?
I've already pointed out an appeal to tradition fallacy, and a naturalistic fallacy in some of his other comments, but this one is stumping me. Anyone have an idea of what fallacy would best fit this line of reasoning?
Fallacious Arguments
-
TheVeganAtheist
- Site Admin
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 9:39 am
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: Canada
Fallacious Arguments
Do you find the forum to be quiet and inactive?
- Do your part by engaging in new and old topics
- Don't wait for others to start NEW topics, post one yourself
- Invite family, friends or critics
- Do your part by engaging in new and old topics
- Don't wait for others to start NEW topics, post one yourself
- Invite family, friends or critics
-
DarlBundren
- Senior Member
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:59 pm
- Diet: Vegetarian
- Location: Southern Europe
Re: Fallacious Arguments
Shouldn't Tu Quoque be directed towards your interlocutor? Tu means you in Latin. Unless the guy is arguing with the lion, I don't think it fits.
-
brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10280
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Fallacious Arguments
Appeal to nature fallacy, somewhat, since it's saying that nature establishes the moral baseline. IF he's saying that. (naturalistic fallacy is something different)
If he's saying that it may be wrong for a lion to kill prey, then you're dealing instead with the definition of morality he's using, and not exactly a fallacy.
It's true that it's harmful for a lion to kill prey. But harm doesn't always equate directly to moral judgement.
It's also harmful for a tornado to kill people, but is the tornado behaving immorally?
And would that excuse us from killing people, because it's no more wrong than a tornado doing it?
For something to be immoral, does it have to be a choice? If you're forced into an action, can it be called immoral?
Usually moral agency is regarded as relying on the ability to choose.
When you throw out the question of choice, you lose the ability to judge or condemn, and can only talk about things as harmful, and not the agents doing them as behaving immorally (since that can only really be established relative to an alternative -- although we could possibly call the beings themselves evil, from tornadoes to mosquitoes to even according to some humanity for our effect on the world).
If he's saying that it may be wrong for a lion to kill prey, then you're dealing instead with the definition of morality he's using, and not exactly a fallacy.
It's true that it's harmful for a lion to kill prey. But harm doesn't always equate directly to moral judgement.
It's also harmful for a tornado to kill people, but is the tornado behaving immorally?
And would that excuse us from killing people, because it's no more wrong than a tornado doing it?
For something to be immoral, does it have to be a choice? If you're forced into an action, can it be called immoral?
Usually moral agency is regarded as relying on the ability to choose.
When you throw out the question of choice, you lose the ability to judge or condemn, and can only talk about things as harmful, and not the agents doing them as behaving immorally (since that can only really be established relative to an alternative -- although we could possibly call the beings themselves evil, from tornadoes to mosquitoes to even according to some humanity for our effect on the world).
-
ThinkAboutThis
- Newbie
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:42 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Fallacious Arguments
He is comparing the behaviour of humans, to the behaviour of lions. So it is also to some degree, a false analogy.
The valid differences would be:
a) lions are obligate carnivores, humans are not.
b) lions lack moral agency, most humans do not.
The valid differences would be:
a) lions are obligate carnivores, humans are not.
b) lions lack moral agency, most humans do not.