(October 6, 2012 at 6:28 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(October 6, 2012 at 6:18 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: It takes an is and turns it into an ought.
This part I have a problem with. I never said we ought to eat meat. We're free to do so or not. It is, in my opinion, an amoral act.
It is the case that some animals eat other animals, therefore we ought to be ok with the case that some animals eat other animals.
That's the reasoning underlying your argument.
Quote:In addition, rape and murder are unjustified because people don't generally wish to be murdered or raped, and therefore it's reasonable to not murder and rape others so that our desires would hopefully be respected.
Does the antelope desire to be eaten by the lion? Does the deer long to be shot by the hunter? Does the cow wish to be slaughtered?
Quote:Let me know when other animals are capable of respecting other animal's desires (including humans) to not be eaten.
Fallacy of appeal to hypocrisy.
Quote:(October 6, 2012 at 6:26 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: So much for critical thinking.
So, where, in your opinion, is it rational to draw the line?
I don't know yet, I've just never seen a rational justification to kill animals to eat.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).