Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuds
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?
|
Yes, but they would need to sight an argument other than, "because it is my personal choice". Personal choice is often used as an argument on its own: "I eat meat because it is my personal choice." He opens his argument with personal choice because he wants that audience to eliminate that argument from their mind, and he wants them to first understand that they need to have arguments besides feelings and desires as to why they choose to eat meat. If they believe "personal choice" is an argument for an action that is a moral action (because it involves other people and other creatures that suffer) then sighting "personal choice" could be a moral argument to do anything, such as not being opposed to dog fighting, murder or genital mutilation. Once the audience accepts that "personal choice" isn't a moral argument for anything then they are ready to deal with other arguments that follow more logically than those about feelings and desires.
I didn't find his argument very hard to follow, but maybe it is, so hopefully that helped because, as you can see, he is allowing for someone to be against dog fighting and for eating meat, but not merely because it feels right or for personal choice. Clear? For instance, someone could argue that eating meat is cruel, but it is necessary because they are allergic to all plants, but they are also against dog fighting because it is cruel. This would be logically consistent with his first point because someone is sighting "personal choice"; they are sighting a medical condition.
People do the same thing with other topics when the topic isn't something they choose for good or sound reasons or when they are uncomfortable about discussing their views or want to avoid discussing their views for any number of reasons. For instance, often religion is sighted as a "personal choice" when someone either can't or doesn't want to argue their beliefs/opinions/position. Sometimes this is because someone has no arguments affirming their choice, and other times it is because the may understand their arguments are weak or may be poorly received, or they want to avoid the debate all together, so "personal choice" is sighted to end the argument, but in the case of eating meat, it is a choice that is a moral choice because it affects others, so it isn't a "personal choice".