Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will read your link. Surely you realize that there are people that go around raping women? It happens everyday. It happens for the reasons I outlined, which are completely logical.
The idea of a logical argument is very simple. In a properly constructed logical argument the conclusions follow from the premises. Most people think causing harm when unnecessary is wrong and most people think rape is unnecessary. Therefore, I could construct an argument as follows:
1) Causing harm when it isn't necessary is wrong.
2) Rape isn't necessary.
3) Rape causes harm. (Can be shown scientifically)
4) Therefore, rape causes harm when unnecessary. 2+3
5) Therefore, rape is wrong. 1+4
If someone feels that causing harm when unnecessary isn't wrong or they think rape is necessary, this argument doesn't apply to them. However, it is illogical for people who agree with the premises to disagree with the conclusion. I think most if not all reasonable people would agree with the premises, 1 and 2, therefore, we could could conclude that most if not all reasonable people should agree with the conclusion that rape is wrong.
In the case that someone disagrees with the premises we could further break down the premises so that the premises of the main argument are conclusions of sub-arguments.
For example, if someone disagrees with premise 2 we could construct the following argument:
1) An action that is necessary is one that is imperative for survival.
2) Rape isn't imperative for survival.
3) Therefore, rape isn't necessary. 1+2
I will read your link. Surely you realize that there are people that go around raping women? It happens everyday. It happens for the reasons I outlined, which are completely logical.
ETA: OP, I read your link. Please state your proposition.
I don't have a proposition, I am asking others for ethical arguments supporting eating meat as not unethical or ethical.
The idea of a logical argument is very simple. In a properly constructed logical argument the conclusions follow from the premises. Most people think causing harm when unnecessary is wrong and most people think rape is unnecessary. Therefore, I could construct an argument as follows:
1) Causing harm when it isn't necessary is wrong.
2) Rape isn't necessary.
3) Rape causes harm. (Can be shown scientifically)
4) Therefore, rape causes harm when unnecessary. 2+3
5) Therefore, rape is wrong. 1+4
If someone feels that causing harm when unnecessary isn't wrong or they think rape is necessary, this argument doesn't apply to them. However, it is illogical for people who agree with the premises to disagree with the conclusion. I think most if not all reasonable people would agree with the premises, 1 and 2, therefore, we could could conclude that most if not all reasonable people should agree with the conclusion that rape is wrong.
In the case that someone disagrees with the premises we could further break down the premises so that the premises of the main argument are conclusions of sub-arguments.
For example, if someone disagrees with premise 2 we could construct the following argument:
1) An action that is necessary is one that is imperative for survival.
2) Rape isn't imperative for survival.
3) Therefore, rape isn't necessary. 1+2
1. Even if "most people" think causing harm is "wrong," that obviously means that there are some people ("most" is not "all") who do not agree with that assertion. Thus, they will choose to cause harm. Isn't this true? It happens everyday.
2. Jumping to your statement that "rape isn't necessary," it doesn't matter if it is necessary or not, rape happens everyday. Can you deny that?
I'll get back to the original point about eating meat. However, please don't think that all of these logical gymnastics takes away anyone's personal ability to choose to or choose not to eat meat. Even if there was a definitive logical/ethical argument against eating meat (and there ISN'T), it still wouldn't take away a person's free will to decide to behave "illogically" or "unethically" by virtue of a personal choice.
You have it backwards. No argument in favor of eating meat needs to be made. This is the default condition of humans and countless other animals ( and a few plants ) since the beginning of time. Any argument would have to be made in opposition to being a carnivore.
1. Even if "most people" think causing harm is "wrong," that obviously means that there are some people ("most" is not "all") who do not agree with that assertion. Thus, they will choose to cause harm. Isn't this true? It happens everyday.
You are still clearly confused about a what an ethical argument is. I cannot do anything about those who don't agree with the premises. I can only work with those who agree with the premises. If enough people agree with certain premises and therefore are logically required to accept the conclusions then laws can be passed to punish those who go against said laws.
Quote:
2. Jumping to your statement that "rape isn't necessary," it doesn't matter if it is necessary or not, rape happens everyday. Can you deny that?
Of course I cannot deny that. That isn't the point of an ethical argument. I can simply say that if those people agree with the premises I put forth then they are acting unethically.
Quote:
I'll get back to the original point about eating meat. However, please don't think that all of these logical gymnastics takes away anyone's personal ability to choose to or choose not to eat meat.
They don't, just like people can choose to kill another person. I just hope one day people will no longer have the legal option to do so.
Quote:
Even if there was a definitive logical/ethical argument against eating meat (and there ISN'T)
You have it backwards. No argument in favor of eating meat needs to be made. This is the default condition of humans and countless other animals ( and a few plants ) since the beginning of time. Any argument would have to be made in opposition to being a carnivore.
The default condition is to also beat others over the head, rape, steal or murder. I can prove that given most peoples ethical positions that eating meat is unethical, this was an opportunity for the other side to give their argument. This isn't like proving a negative, both sides should have an argument.
The default condition is to also beat others over the head, rape, steal or murder. I can prove that given most peoples ethical positions that eating meat is unethical, this was an opportunity for the other side to give their argument. This isn't like proving a negative, both sides should have an argument.
That's nonsense. Most people don't beat others, rape etc. I eat meat because I am built to eat meat, it tastes good, it's nutritious, and I have access to it. There's no ethics question here.
That's nonsense. Most people don't beat others, rape etc. I eat meat because I am built to eat meat, it tastes good, it's nutritious, and I have access to it. There's no ethics question here.
Of course there is an ethics question here. Please refer to the link I posted. It covers all these illogical arguments you are making. An appeal to nature isn't a logical argument. Human meat might taste good to some people, it doesn't justify cannibalism. It doesn't provide any nutrition that cannot be found in other foods and eating meat lowers your life expectancy.
I am going to reiterate, no arguments about health or taste, taste isn't logical argument and the health positions aren't founded in science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
