Question about fallacies

[Karthak]

Earlier today I got into an argument with a person at school. The topic was hunting. I thought that it was largely ok to hunt moose, and she was completely opposed. To cut a long story short, she claimed that if it is ok to hunt down and kill a moose, why isn't it ok to just gun down a human at random. The discussion...devolved from there. Did she use a fallacy, and if so, which one would fit best?

 

[Nouw]

Well as they say...information is beautiful. [http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/VISUALIZATIONS/RHETOLOGICAL-FALLACIES/] I can't tell you which one she used, if any at all, but I'm sure you'll find something in this site.

 

[manic_depressive13]

That's not a fallacy. It's a perfectly fair rhetorical question which people treat as taboo, often strangling the discussion. The problem is that people don't actually consider why we shouldn't kill humans. If you would stop to think for a moment instead of reacting reflexively because you've had it drilled into your head that humans have some magical mystical quality which makes them more deserving of life than other animals, you would come up with actual reasons why we grant people rights. Then you would then try to establish whether these qualities are present in animals, rather than searching for a fallacy in the hope that you can win the argument in a few wanky latin words instead of having to think for yourself.

 

[Queen Michael]

I suppose that her problem is inconcistency. If she's sick she tries to cure her disease by killing the bacteria, and still she's opposed to killing moose.

 

[wintercoat]

That's not a fallacy. It's a perfectly fair rhetorical question which people treat as taboo, often strangling the discussion. The problem is that people don't actually consider why we shouldn't kill humans. If you would stop to think for a moment instead of reacting reflexively because you've had it drilled into your head that humans have some magical mystical quality which makes them more deserving of life than other animals, you would come up with actual reasons why we grant people rights. Then you would then try to establish whether these qualities are present in animals, rather than searching for a fallacy in the hope that you can win the argument in a few wanky latin words instead of having to think for yourself.

Yes it is a fallacy. It's a false equivalency. It assumes that the life of a moose and the life of a human are held equal by society. Reasoning behind said value has no bearing on whether or not the argument was fallacious.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Yes it is a fallacy. It's a false equivalency. It assumes that the life of a moose and the life of a human are held equal by society. Reasoning behind said value has no bearing on whether or not the argument was fallacious.

It's not a false equivalency. She said if killing a moose is acceptable, why isn't randomly killing a human. She didn't say "A moose is equal in value to a human". She asked what qualities a human has that a moose doesn't which are relevant when weighing their right to life.

The argument you gave is ridiculous. You could use your argument for gay marriage.

"If a straight person can get married, why can't a gay person?"

"That's a false equivalency! It assumes the rights of straights and the rights of gays are held equal by society!"

What we're trying to establish is whether society is JUSTIFIED in holding those values.

 

[Rawne1980]

If I did hunt Moose, it would be for food.

I don't quite fancy the idea of eating human.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I suppose that her problem is inconcistency. If she's sick she tries to cure her disease by killing the bacteria, and still she's opposed to killing moose.

Okay children, why do you think killing bacteria is different to killing a human?

 

[wintercoat]

Yes it is a fallacy. It's a false equivalency. It assumes that the life of a moose and the life of a human are held equal by society. Reasoning behind said value has no bearing on whether or not the argument was fallacious.

It's not a false equivalency. She said if killing a moose is acceptable, why isn't randomly killing a human. She didn't say "A moose is equal in value to a human". She asked what qualities a human has that a moose doesn't which are relevant when weighing their right to life.

The argument you gave is ridiculous. You could use your argument for gay marriage.

"If a straight person can get married, why can't a gay person?"

"That's a false equivalency! It assumes the rights of straights and the rights of gays are held equal by society!"

What we're trying to establish is whether society is JUSTIFIED in holding those values.

You...do realize that's how things are right now...right? The fact that it's wrong doesn't make gay marriage any more legal, just like it being wrong doesn't make killing another human legal because they're allowed to kill a moose.

 

[manic_depressive13]

You...do realize that's how things are right now...right? The fact that it's wrong doesn't make gay marriage any more legal, just like it being wrong doesn't make killing another human legal because they're allowed to kill a moose.

You... do realise that their discussion was about the moral value of these acts and not whether or not they are currently legal... right?

 

[FalloutJack]

Earlier today I got into an argument with a person at school. The topic was hunting. I thought that it was largely ok to hunt moose, and she was completely opposed. To cut a long story short, she claimed that if it is ok to hunt down and kill a moose, why isn't it ok to just gun down a human at random. The discussion...devolved from there. Did she use a fallacy, and if so, which one would fit best?

She used a fallacy. In no way is moose hunting like human hunting and therefore a bad comparison. (Good students of writing will recall The Most Dangerous Game for this.) Humans are also at the top of the food chain and moose are irritable, violent animals. No, seriously. They will charge and try to trample or pound human beings. They do not like us, and we do not like them, except as food and game.

A good way to approach this argument would be to say that hunting moose is okay if hunting anything else, or fishing, or slaughtering any animal for food is okay. If you are willing to accept the death of animals for your own needs, then hunting any of them is not bad. Human beings, though, are not in that same category, and it is illegal to hunt us. (Our own laws, hah!)

 

[Karthak]

She used a fallacy. In no way is moose hunting like human hunting and therefore a bad comparison. (Good students of writing will recall The Most Dangerous Game for this.) Humans are also at the top of the food chain and moose are irritable, violent animals. No, seriously. They will charge and try to trample or pound human beings. They do not like us, and we do not like them, except as food and game.

I mentioned the fact that humans are a lot more intelligent than moose, and that I wouldn't support the hunting of say, gorillas or dolphins because I believe they are almost as smart as humans. Then she said in a really condescending tone something along the lines of me being a utilitarian because of this, and that really bad things come from utilitarianism. After that the shouting started.

 

[Angie7F]

Well, if killing moose and killing humans are the same, killing bacteria and killing moose would be the same.
However, in order to survive, we have to take the lives of others, whether it be animals, plants or sometimes other humans.
You may not be killing the cow/ pig/ hen to eat your bacon and eggs, but someone it doing that for you.
You may not be murdering someone, but your country or political/ religious/ whatever may be killing people to make sure that your life is safe and carries on the way it should be.
I think it is too hypocritical to say that moose should not be hunted, but also countering her argument with "intelligence" was not a smart move either.
I used to worry about that kind of stuff a lot, but then i realized that over thinking matters like this can drive you insane, so I just try to appreciate what keeps me alive, but not feel too bad about it either.

 

[JoJo]

If I did hunt Moose, it would be for food.

I don't quite fancy the idea of eating human.

I heartily disagree, they can be excellent in a stew.

OT: While she may have used a fallacy, simply quoting a name won't win you the argument. Try to explain to her the reasons you treat moose and humans differently from a moral perspective and even if she doesn't agree with you, she'll understand the reasons you believe what you do.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Earlier today I got into an argument with a person at school. The topic was hunting. I thought that it was largely ok to hunt moose, and she was completely opposed. To cut a long story short, she claimed that if it is ok to hunt down and kill a moose, why isn't it ok to just gun down a human at random. The discussion...devolved from there. Did she use a fallacy, and if so, which one would fit best?

There's no fallacy. You just disagree with the second premise.

P1: We are allowed to hunt and kill animals
P2: Humans are animals
______
C1: We are allowed to hunt and kill humans


Consider how stupid and useless babies, the demented, and the mentally handicapped are compared to monkeys, dogs, cats, etc... and you rule out the only real argument separating humans-in-general from animals-in-general: intelligence.

Biologically, we're all 'animals'.

There's a lot of talk in philosophy circles about this kind of thing. The question of whether or not humans are particularly special compared to animals is answered pretty well as a "No." So the Question becomes what to do about it. One difference between humans and animals is moral agency. We can consider whether what we're doing is the 'right' thing or not. Some people extend this into a kind of 'Stewards of the Earth' argument, where it's our duty as the only moral creature to look after all the others.

A more practical position is to simply consider the interests of animals alongside the interests of humans. Remember: equal consideration doesn't mean equal treatment. The latter is obviously absurd (pigs can't vote), but the former seems pretty reasonable. Should we really be destroying the homes of, and so indirectly killing, thousands of animals in the Amazon just so we can have more couches and paper? Hardly seems fair on them, does it?

 

[Rastien]

hehe phallic wait... fallacy... oh my bad :>

 

[Milanezi]

Earlier today I got into an argument with a person at school. The topic was hunting. I thought that it was largely ok to hunt moose, and she was completely opposed. To cut a long story short, she claimed that if it is ok to hunt down and kill a moose, why isn't it ok to just gun down a human at random. The discussion...devolved from there. Did she use a fallacy, and if so, which one would fit best?

I don't like hunting, the idea of killing a beautiful animal just for the sake of it disgusts me (I totally understand it if you're gonna EAT the animal afterwards, though).
But here's the deal, I had a Penal Law teacher who was into hunting, to the point he'd go to AFRICA to hunt. He said that legal hunting required a lot of money depending on the creature, the money and the meat are supposed to go and help the local community, to the point where some organizations such as WWC (is that the name?) endorse it, since the legal program takes care to manage the equilibrium of environments (I NEVER CHECKED ON THIS INFO).
In my opinion though, she loses all reason by saying "killing humans at random", I mean, you can't even kill animals at random to begin with, there are rules (usually).
In my opinion what really differentiates us from animals, is the fact that we have CONSCIOUSNESS, all of us, even the mentally handicapped. We have the ability to attribute values, to consider actions and consequences, to call what is right and what is wrong (natural law, origins of the 1st generation of human rights, etc). Consciousness is that which buries the primitive animal inside us all, that reduces our instinct in favor of logic and reason, consciousness is reflecting "Who am I? Why am I? Where did I come from?" EVERYTHING else can be found among savage animals, feelings, intelligence, instinct and even something akin to reason, but consciousness is ours alone. And it's beyond divine, that's why you don't kill humans at random, the light that goes of with a single human death tends to be a bright and powerful one, whilst when it comes to animals, the very proverbial light is actually a consequence of OUR power, the impact is that of nature, and not of a single entity.

 

[Milanezi]

If I did hunt Moose, it would be for food.

I don't quite fancy the idea of eating human.

I heartily disagree, they can be excellent in a stew.

OT: While she may have used a fallacy, simply quoting a name won't win you the argument. Try to explain to her the reasons you treat moose and humans differently from a moral perspective and even if she doesn't agree with you, she'll understand the reasons you believe what you do.

That also, in any argument at all, from gaming to religion, people of good will will ALWAYS listen to new ideas, even if they don't agree with them, at least they'll understand the origins your opinion, and then try (or not) to persuade you, or might come into conflict with their own ideas, meaning they might either deny you view once again, incorporate with their own and get to a new result, or simply see that you're line of thinking makes more sense. "you can only see the tower if you're OUT of the tower" kind of thing you know?

That's the line that separates people who are willing to dialog from extremist (often dangerous) ideologists, those will never really hear you, they'll either block you from the start, or listen to you in order to twist your words and keep trying to turn you to their side; I dare say this is often seen in religion in different levels.

 

[Milanezi]

You...do realize that's how things are right now...right? The fact that it's wrong doesn't make gay marriage any more legal, just like it being wrong doesn't make killing another human legal because they're allowed to kill a moose.

You... do realise that their discussion was about the moral value of these acts and not whether or not they are currently legal... right?

You both... do realize... that I'm reading everything you write, right?...

 

[Milanezi]

She used a fallacy. In no way is moose hunting like human hunting and therefore a bad comparison. (Good students of writing will recall The Most Dangerous Game for this.) Humans are also at the top of the food chain and moose are irritable, violent animals. No, seriously. They will charge and try to trample or pound human beings. They do not like us, and we do not like them, except as food and game.

I mentioned the fact that humans are a lot more intelligent than moose, and that I wouldn't support the hunting of say, gorillas or dolphins because I believe they are almost as smart as humans. Then she said in a really condescending tone something along the lines of me being a utilitarian because of this, and that really bad things come from utilitarianism. After that the shouting started.

Once it gets to the shouting, you should give her a smirk, and get back to doing what you were doing before. You MIGHT just send her a kiss or something, people get pissed when you do something sweet -albeit false- to them when they're angry and hating you lol

Anyway, nothing good comes out of anybody's mind when they get to the screaming point. But she's right there, but as with most things in the world utilitarianism does not necessarily equal a bad thing.