Question about fallacies

[X10J]

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?

You could argue that she used the fallocy of weak analogy. That is that since humans are capable consciousness, and as far as I know, moose aren't, you could argue that the two aren't sufficiently similar for a strong anology.

That's been pretty much the argument used in the past to justify killing animals, at least. On the other hand, if she said that the two were similar because they both experience pain, that may be a different story. That said, as far as you described, she never described how they were the same, just that they were, which may indicate the fallacy of unsuppported assertion.

 

[Bertylicious]

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?

You raise an excellent point! I would say, however, that your initial premise; "we are allowed to hunt and kill animals" is where you've gone astray.

For example we are not allowed to hunt and kill endangered animals. We are not allowed to hunt and kill animals that belong to people, like pets.

You have implied that this is a question of values and categories. The nub of that argument is whether we would invest animals with inherant properties that make their arbitrary destruction immoral. On those grounds I would conclude that the question "why wouldn't you hunt people then?" is a slightly glib way of asserting a valid question, albeit in a sloppy, imprecise, and flawed fashion.

Personally I think are far better line of enquiry would be to argue whether the act of hunting is itself a self destructive excercise. You know; brutalisation, dysfunctional personal growth, camping, all that horrid stuff.

 

[BeerTent]

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

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

But they're delicious, crunchy, and taste exquisite with ketchup!

 

[Spectral Dragon]

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.

Well, then you simply have to set a limit - what's the biggest amount of intelligence you would be okay with killing, and why? Is it imagination, or x amount of higher thinking? Would you kill a dog? A deer? A newborn deer? How much of what's okay to kill is only due to society's main opinion?
Just ask yourself where you draw the line, and figure out WHY, and if it's valid, you now have a pretty damn good argument for your standpoint.

Utilitarianism means that you want the most amount of happiness for the most amount of consciousness... I fail to see how it's bad just like that. There are many issues with it, but it's no worse than deontological ethics. It's got more issues, but seems to be better (at least to me) since it doesn't involve objective morality. I'd suggest reading up a little on both terms, and why they'd both be good/bad, and you're set.

 

[CAMDAWG]

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.

I don't think you could really call it inconsistency unless the situation either organism is found in is similar. For example, if said moose was charging her, or in some way trying to harm her, I doubt she'd have much problem killing it in self defense, which is pretty much what you do with antibiotics. It would be inconsistent if she took antibiotics every day, for the fun of killing bacteria. Which no one does.

It would also depend at where you draw the line for equivalencies. Do you argue that all animals should be fair game (assuming you stick with her line of argument)? All Multicellular organisms? All eukaryotic organisms? Viruses? Hydrocarbons? etc...

While I do find the idea of hunting to be pretty nasty when it's not done to supply food, but more for fun, it sounds like this person really didn't develop her position very well before trying to argue it.

Humans are also at the top of the food chain and moose are irritable, violent animals.

Are you implying that humans AREN'T irritable and violent? I mean, at least with most (herbivorous) animals, you can expect that they won't attack unless you hit them, or threaten their young, or enter their territory. Human's have killed thousands of their own species because they think they should worship the same god in slightly different ways. If that's not irritable and violent, I don't know what is.

Also, I get that that probably wasn't the thrust of that sentence, but it just made me laugh as I read it.

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.

I'm really sorry, and I know you prefaced that with "in my opinion", but just about all of that is utter crap.

First, of all, you need to give consciousness a meaningful definition, so that it might be determined whether or not it's present in animals, and most of the characteristics you went on to list are present in some animals, perhaps not all, but just in a manner that is unfamiliar or unintuitive to humans. Let's compare ourselves to a wolf pack, shall we? The pack clearly is able to attribute some values regarding the pack hierarchy, those values are simply not the same as the more egalitarian human values that are expressed in human rights stuff. They are definitely able to consider actions and consequences (that's just a ridiculous thing to attribute to some mystical characteristic of humans.), as are most animals. The pack is also able to label what is right and wrong, they simply have different definitions. For example, it is wrong to steal the alpha's food, it is right to not mate with any of the alpha's mates. Different to our definitions, but who says ours are correct? I certainly prefer ours, but they wouldn't be ideal in a population that has to struggle to survive, and human's haven't been in that position for a long time. Wolves also possess some capacity to reason, hence why they hunt in packs, and (potentially) why they became domesticated. All that reflection stuff, while very poetic, doesn't mean a whole bunch, and anyway, do you know that animals don't think about that stuff? I don't know, and neither do you, so you certainly shouldn't make a claim either way. Anyway, if they don't consider that stuff, it's probably again only due to the fact that humans have so little threat to their survival, and so they can spend time thinking about pointless stuff, instead of trying to get enough food to live.

The rest is just more poetic nonsense. Humans are no more special than any other animal, we just got a little bit of extra intelligence, pushed that advantage as hard as possible, and came out on top of the pile. My suggestion is to simply accept that fact, and move on. Trying to suggest that we are somehow more special is only going to make you look foolish.

 

[BrassButtons]

OT: I'm not sure if she used a specific fallacy; an argument can be bad without being fallacious.

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?

If you're going to go this route, then what's the difference between killing a turnip and killing a human? After all, the turnip is alive, it grows, it has a metabolism--other than being able to get up and move around it has all the characteristics shared by humans and bacteria. Yet you haven't died of starvation, so clearly you kill and eat plants. So what makes killing them different?

 

[manic_depressive13]

If you're going to go this route, then what's the difference between killing a turnip and killing a human? After all, the turnip is alive, it grows, it has a metabolism--other than being able to get up and move around it has all the characteristics shared by humans and bacteria. Yet you haven't died of starvation, so clearly you kill and eat plants. So what makes killing them different?

I know what the difference is. I want to see what Queen Michael thinks the difference is. I want to understand what massive, mystical and divine gulf they think exists between humans and other mammals that, to them, equating a moose to bacteria makes more sense than comparing a human to a moose.

 

[Korolev]

It's not a fallacy if you think animal life is worth the same as human life, which she obviously does. To her, and to people who hold her values, hunting is absolutely not okay and her argument makes sense. To others, like myself, who do not hold Moose and Humans to be equal, her argument doesn't hold true.

She isn't using a fallacy. She just has different values to you.

 

[Inconspicuous Trenchcoat]

In my quickly typed and poorly thought out in the moment opinion: There is no intrinsic/concrete reason why human life is more valuable/sacred than that of a moose (that I can reason out). I think the humans have consciousness thing is also just a case of "because we said so." The idea that we are above animals is not a constant with an origin and reason you can pinpoint, like gravity on Earth. It's simply that way because the majority of humans decided it should be that way. And since there's no natural/physical law/rule/principle for determining the relative value of life (except maybe natural selection, sort of?), I guess we can make up the rules, cause there weren't any to begin with.

I don't hunt and would hope those who do at least use some part of their prey, but I still hold human life as far more valuable than any animal's (I still feel really bad when I see a dead one though , except deer, those jerks don't respect the rules of the road ). There's nothing objective to go off when comparing the value of one species over another (that I know of), so what's there stopping us from just making up the rules for ourselves? Human life is more valuable than animal life, because the majority (I assume) of humans believe it is. There's no reason beyond that (again, as far as I know).

Like someone above said, thinking too hard about some things is scary and leads to existential crisis so I guess I'll just carry on instead. And bring a towel, or something... what was that Hitchhiker's Guide meme again?

OT: Everyone else already cleared the issue up, I think. She's just bringing up a point to think about, not using a fallacy.

 

[Loonyyy]

No she didn't. She stumped you, because she just showed that you hadn't thoroughly considered your assumptions (And now you're looking for a logical fallacy through other people (Which shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the logic involved, which should tell you that your position is not necessarily logical). Why is it acceptable to kill a moose, as opposed to a human? If it's not ok to kill a person, why is it ok to kill a moose?

If you can't justify those, then to hold both positions would be a contradiction. Basically, you hold the premise that humans are special (Anthropocentricism) (I'm guessing, but most people do). As far as premises go, it's kind of silly. There's only one real argument in it's favour: Considering the feelings of other humans is important, because they actively can work to cause events in your own life, but of course, this doesn't do much to argue against killing people in secret.

Me, I think it's not ok to kill the moose, or the person, but, to take Queen Michael's (Silly) example, I think it's ok to kill bacteria.

Because I hold the following values as premises:

1) It is wrong to cause net pain.
2) As Bacteria have neither sentience, or a nervous system which matches those which feel pain, they cannot feel pain.
3) A living creature should not have their life endangered, and beings which endanger their lives are expendable.

Conclusion: It is fine to kill a viral infection.

You're not terminating something which is conscious of it's own existance, or capable of memory, or feeling pain.

The validity of your premises is open to interpretation, your premises must themselves be correct. Morality is dependent on the affirmation of certain premises. These vary from person to person. Assuming that another person's interpretation is fallacious based on disagreement is extremely arrogant, and to simply look for fallacy when someone questions your argument, you should consider how well you structure your own positions.

EDIT: As a sidenote, the fact that I could not justify with premises I affirm, the killing of animals for food, was one of the main reasons I stopped eating meat. I can't see a way which I can justify where killing animals to eat is different from killing humans to eat. You could just use ad hoc reasons to justify your position, but then you'd be heading from conclusion to argument, which isn't particularly good.

 

[Bertylicious]

It's not a fallacy if you think animal life is worth the same as human life, which she obviously does. To her, and to people who hold her values, hunting is absolutely not okay and her argument makes sense. To others, like myself, who do not hold Moose and Humans to be equal, her argument doesn't hold true.

She isn't using a fallacy. She just has different values to you.

Now don't get me wrong, I hate animals, particularly big stupid things like moose (mooses? moosi? Mees?) that lumber about, getting in the way, but surely if we state that there is even the possibility that another person's value system is legitimate then surely we have a moral imperative to uphold it?

We'd basically be saying that hunting might be an atrocity. Surely the moral imperative would be to err on the side of caution?

 

[Vegosiux]

but surely if we state that there is even the possibility that another person's value system is legitimate then surely we have a moral imperative to uphold it?

I'm pretty sure the iffy part there is of course, "WHICH moral systems are legitimate and what are our criteria for that?" Not all value systems are created equal, naturally, I think most of us here that the value systems that involve honor killings of women that committed the heinous crime of being raped are preposterous.

But, my favorite question for "Poor poor animals" types is "So, you don't use mosquito repellants or something?"

 

[Kopikatsu]

but surely if we state that there is even the possibility that another person's value system is legitimate then surely we have a moral imperative to uphold it?

I'm pretty sure the iffy part there is of course, "WHICH moral systems are legitimate and what are our criteria for that?" Not all value systems are created equal, naturally, I think most of us here that the value systems that involve honor killings of women that committed the heinous crime of being raped are preposterous.

But, my favorite question for "Poor poor animals" types is "So, you don't use mosquito repellants or something?"

You consider rape to be a heinous crime, but it's the primary method of reproduction for many fowl and insects.

Values are entirely subjective. There is nothing that is objectively good or bad about...well...anything, so a belief system endorsing rape and slavery is just as 'valid' as one that endorses peace and goodwill.

For instance, you would say that the former is horrific and the latter is good because of the morals that have been drilled into you since day one, but someone like, say, Ghangis Khan would be all for the former and despise the latter.

 

[Bertylicious]

but surely if we state that there is even the possibility that another person's value system is legitimate then surely we have a moral imperative to uphold it?

I'm pretty sure the iffy part there is of course, "WHICH moral systems are legitimate and what are our criteria for that?" Not all value systems are created equal, naturally, I think most of us here that the value systems that involve honor killings of women that committed the heinous crime of being raped are preposterous.

But, my favorite question for "Poor poor animals" types is "So, you don't use mosquito repellants or something?"

You consider rape to be a heinous crime, but it's the primary method of reproduction for many fowl and insects.

Values are entirely subjective. There is nothing that is objectively good or bad about...well...anything, so a belief system endorsing rape and slavery is just as 'valid' as one that endorses peace and goodwill.

For instance, you would say that the former is horrific and the latter is good because of the morals that have been drilled into you since day one, but someone like, say, Ghangis Khan would be all for the former and despise the latter.

Actually I'd say that the whole concept of "morality" in any absolute sense is fundamentally flawed as to do so relies on the assertion that it is possible for states or things to be irrefutable in all circumstances, which strikes me as inherently false.

Rather I think the only way is subjective decisions made on a case by case basis on the merits of experiences and outcomes. The gang rape honour killing nonsense is a great example; failure to ascribe equality to women results in squandering of social capital, contradictory social justice ("You raped my daughter!" "she's only a woman!" "BUT SHE'S MINE" problem) and the injection of violence into the social fabric with all the problems that entails.

There are also personal stakes to consider. I am a human. For me, being an apex predator at the top of the food chain, eating everything else with nothing to eat me, is pretty good in terms of food chains. In fact I would go so far as to say that it is ideal. If we say that hunting humans is okay then that means that, no matter how many caveats or controls you may put in, it is theoretically possible that I could be hunted by another human.

This is not acceptable.

Beyond social, personal and (from little I know about studies of cannibalism) medical problems there is no inherant reason why we shouldn't hunt humans. Only that it is better for humans (and therefore us) to not hunt them.

 

[Vegosiux]

You consider rape to be a heinous crime, but it's the primary method of reproduction for many fowl and insects.

Maybe. But I was talking about the heinous crime of "GETTING raped" for which women have been executed in so called "honor killings" in some parts of the world. I mean, who cares that a man forced himself on her, she shamed our family by not staying a virgin until marriage, therefore she must pay with her blood.

Isn't that completely asinine?

Values are entirely subjective. There is nothing that is objectively good or bad about...well...anything, so a belief system endorsing rape and slavery is just as 'valid' as one that endorses peace and goodwill.

I agree that there is no such thing as "objective morality".

But in order for our society to keep existing and progressing, we need to not be clonking each other over the head all the time, so value systems that include a lot of clonking are subjectively, from the point of view of our society, and, since I'm a member of said society, from my own point of view as well, are bad value systems.

I want to live in a society that progresses instead of being busy with its members clonking each other over the head all the time.

For instance, you would say that the former is horrific and the latter is good because of the morals that have been drilled into you since day one, but someone like, say, Ghangis Khan would be all for the former and despise the latter.

No, actually I'd say the former is horrific and the latter is good because I'm a selfish creature who would very much prefer not to get raped and enslaved by anyone who has 5 minutes of time. So basically, I'd say the latter is good because, guess what, it's good for me.

Completely subjective and selfish, the universe of course doesn't care much about whether or not I get raped and enslaved, but I do. I also happen to be lucky enough that my preferences of not getting raped and enslaved seem to align with the preferences of most people.

That, and I don't feel any particular need to clonk, rape, or enslave other people, and I also think it would be just grand if other people weren't doing so either.