Quote:
Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0
Your analysis of his first point is not represented correctly. It went like this:
Antagonist
1. Choosing to eat animals is a personal choice.
2. Personal choices aren't about morals.
3. Personal choices are about desires.
4. I desire to eat meat therefore eating meat is a moral personal choice.
This is false in the A then B context and in the circular reasoning context.
Protagonist...challenges line 2 and 3.
1. Some personal choices are falsely claimed to be personal.
2. It is not a personal choice when a choice involves another creature, especially when that choice involves the suffering of that creature.
3. Choosing to harm a person or dog is immoral because there is suffering.
4. Therefore, choosing to harm a person or dog is not a personal choice.
5. People claim that choosing to eat animals is a personal choice.
6. Eating animals leads to animal suffering.
7. Needless animal suffering is immoral.
8. Therefore, the choice of needlessly eating animals is not a personal choice, and it is immoral.
|
Those are direct points I or someone else can argue against. Where does the dog fighting, genital mutilation, and murder plug in? Because that is the straw man piece. He implied that if you argue against any of those points you are also arguing against these points.
In the presenters line of reasoning, can somebody be opposed to dog fighting and also have no moral objections to eat meat? Does he present that as inconsistent application of morality?