Logical Fallacies in Real Life In today’s society, fallacies are all around us either in politics, television, radio or even picking up an old fashion newspaper. They can be misleading and may cause bad judgement if they are not evaluated property. Some can even fool you because the argument may have a valid point, but the point does not lead to the correct conclusion.
When I was a young child my world was black and white with no room for gray spheres of interference. In my household we never had discussions of where our food was coming from other than our weekly trips to the grocery store which mainly consisted of “What kind of chips do you want this week?” or “Do we really need seven pounds of hamburger meat?” Even as I became older
…show more content…
Animals wanted to die and by me eating them I gave them a way out of their pain and suffering. I thought that maybe they went in their sleep and the deaths were peaceful and silent. I whole heartily believed in this illusion until one day when I had turned on the television I see a completely new whole at hand. Pure white feathers as white as a fresh blanket of snow covered in bright red almost electric blood smearing the floor below it. This was my lunch, and dinner was in the slaughter house waiting for her turn not even knowing where she is going or how this will end. Turkeys with broken necks, still breathing, watching, waiting for hope of their savior, a rotating saw that would finish the job. This was my Thanksgiving, my Christmas, my Saturday, my week, my life. My life I was living, I was nothing but an accomplice to murder. In ninety minutes my world had changed from a crystal chandelier to a foggy windshield on a rainy day. I can never un-see what I had witnessed that day in fact I still experience nightmares and visions of what I saw. I now know that meat is a sacrifice that only they will know. Every life has some meaning whether it be to someday become the leader of the free world or to eat, get so fat that you can break your legs, be killed systematically and feed one family. The biggest cliché that has ever been spoken goes something along the lines of ‘It’s the wheel of life that keeps on spinning. The faster we move
Did they have a good quality of life before the death that turned them into someone’s dinner?” (Steiner 845). With these questions the author tries to hook up his audience and make them think about how and where does everyday meat comes from.
We care so much about what the food is and how it is made that we overlook about where the food had come from. According to the reading selection, “Killing Them with Kindness?” by James McWilliams, an American history professor at Texas State University, states “animals raised in factory farms have qualities that make them worthy of our moral consideration…[and yet, we] continue to ignore the ethical considerations involved in eating meat” (311). This exhibits that when Americans are so engrossed in healthy eating, our morals about animal rights are neglected. Most of what we eat are animals, and animals like we do have emotions, interests, and possibly goals in life. We pay no heed of the animal’s interests and it should not be that way since our interests are no more important just because we are more superior, intelligent beings should not give us the right to perceive animals in such a manner. In addition to paying notice of the origin of where the animals come from, we need to be aware of what killing animals will do to the earth. In the TedTalk, “What’s Wrong with the Way We Eat,” Mark Bittman states “10 billion animals are killed each year for food and they represent 18% of the harmful greenhouse gasses” (Bittman). This reveals that our careless consumption would not only lead to the suffering of animal deaths but the suffering of our world and our imminent death. As we increase our progression with our unhealthy obsession over healthy eating, there will not be any positive effects for the body, the animals around us, or the world. If we were to be conscious about the source of our food and the consequence of eating then we will be able to eat healthily and
As I have progressed through this class, my already strong interest in animal ethics has grown substantially. The animal narratives that we have read for this course and their discussion have prompted me to think more deeply about mankind’s treatment of our fellow animals, including how my actions impact Earth’s countless other creatures. It is all too easy to separate one’s ethical perspective and personal philosophy from one’s actions, and so after coming to the conclusion that meat was not something that was worth killing for to me, I became a vegetarian. The trigger for this change (one that I had attempted before, I might add) was in the many stories of animal narratives and their inseparable discussion of the morality in how we treat animals. I will discuss the messages and lessons that the readings have presented on animal ethics, particularly in The Island of Doctor Moreau, The Dead Body and the Living Brain, Rachel in Love, My Friend the Pig, and It Was a Different Day When They Killed the Pig. These stories are particularly relevant to the topic of animal ethics and what constitutes moral treatment of animals, each carrying important lessons on different facets the vast subject of animal ethics.
During the first week of class, we discussed informal fallacies. An informal fallacy is defined as a logical mistake. Five of the informal fallacies discussed were equivocation, ad hominem, straw man, appeal to authority, and secundum. Each of these fallacies is comparable to what happens in everyday life conversations. Through analyzing, one should be able to determine how these logical mistakes connect with our everyday lives.
A fallacy is defined as a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid, faulty reasoning, or a misleading or unsound argument. There are many kinds of fallacies and even websites devoted to describing the various kinds of logical fallacies. Fallacies, though, are slippery little fiends, which do not hesitate to creep in even where they are unwanted. No one wants their argument proved false, but careful, critical readers can spot these shifty deceivers. On the website of the Center for American Progress, there is an article – authored by Catherine Brown and Ulrich Boser – called “The DeVos Family Dynasty.” This article is a poor example of persuasive communication because there are many cases of ad hominem fallacy, the authors repeatedly
Meat has become a part of our culture in our country, where it is expected as part of each meal of the day. But the production of the meat raises questions on whether eating meat is ethical in people’s eyes. Studies in recent years have shown that the growing impact of our meat eating culture, has negatively affected different aspects around us. The problem is not about whether people should or should not eat meat, but that we should focus on how the production of meat can have negative affects and how we can limit those problems.
Jonathan Safran Foer wrote “Eating Animals” for his son; although, when he started writing it was not meant to be a book (Foer). More specifically to decide whether he would raise his son as a vegetarian or meat eater and to decide what stories to tell his son (Foer). The book was meant to answer his question of what meat is and how we get it s well as many other questions. Since the book is a quest for knowledge about the meat we eat, the audience for this book is anyone that consumes food. This is book is filled with research that allows the audience to question if we wish to continue to eat meat or not and provide answers as to why. Throughout the book Foer uses healthy doses of logos and pathos to effectively cause his readers to question if they will eat meat at their next meal and meals that follow. Foer ends his book with a call to action that states “Consistency is not required, but engagement with the problem is.” when dealing with the problem of factory farming (Foer).
A straw-man fallacy misrepresents a position of the opposing side in an argument. It usually does so in such way that the opposing side seems to be ridiculously exaggerated or blown out of proportion or simply false. As an example people that think that gun ownership is wrong and needs to be controlled or banned altogether have no respect for the rights of gun owners. They treat them all as gun toting nut cases. That’s wrong. People must have the right to own a gun if they so choose.
Fallacies Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the reasoning of your argument. Fallacies have different types like Begging the Claim, Ad hominem, Straw Man and more. and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. A writer or speaker should avoid these common fallacies in their arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others. Learning to identify and avoid fallacies is crucial for professionals in all fields of life, literature, science, politics, etc.
“The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that their treatment has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."(Schopenhauer). I always wondered why some people are not so drawn to the consumption of meat and fed up with only one thought about it. Why so many people loathe of blood, and why so few people can easily kill and be slaughter animal, until they just get used to it? This reaction should say something about the most important moments in the code, which was programmed in the human psyche. Realization the necessity of refraining from meat is especially difficult because people consume it for a long time, and in addition, there is a certain attitude to the meat as to the product that is useful, nourishing and even prestigious. On the other hand, the constant consumption of meat has made the vast majority of people completely emotionless towards it. However, there must be some real and strong reasons for refusal of consumption of meat and as I noticed they were always completely different. So, even though vegetarianism has evolved drastically over time, some of its current forms have come back full circle to resemble that of its roots, when vegetarianism was an ethical-philosophical choice, not merely a matter of personal health.
Vegetarians are uncomfortable with how humans treat animals. Animals are cruelly butchered to meet the high demand and taste for meat in the market. Furthermore, meat-consumers argue that meat based foods are cheaper than plant based foods. According to Christians, man was given the power to dominate over all creatures in the world. Therefore, man has the right to use animals for food (Singer and Mason, 2007). However, it is unjustified for man to treat animals as he wishes because he has the power to rule over animals. This owes to the reality that it is unclear whether man has the right to slaughter animals (haphazardly), but it is clear that humans have a duty to take care of animals. In objection, killing animals is equal to killing fellow humans because both humans and animals have a right to life. Instead of brutally slaying animals, people should consume their products, which...
Many people don’t believe think anything of what they eat or how it got there. But the harsh truth is the meat that you eat was once a living, breathing creature that had feeling and emotions. Maybe next time you order a steak or chicken nuggets you should think about the animals that went through extreme pain and conditions for you to eat. Not only is it inhumane to put animals through such pain, not eating meat and having a vegetarian lifestyle can have huge benefits to animals, the environment, and your health.
For several years the issue of eating meat has been a great concern to all types of people all over the world. In many different societies controversy has began to arise over the morality of eating meat from animals. A lot of the reasons for not eating meat have to deal with religious affiliations, personal health, animal rights, and concern about the environment. Vegetarians have a greater way of expressing meats negative effects on the human body whereas meat eaters have close to no evidence of meat eating being a positive effect on the human body. Being a vegetarian is more beneficial for human beings because of health reasons, environmental issues, and animal rights.
Every person has the ability to make their own choice of whether to eat meat or not. However, eating meat is directly tied to negative health effects, pollution leading to a depletion of ozone, and the depletion of hundreds of thousands of acres of land “wasted” on animal production when they could be used to solve the hunger crisis or lower emission levels. What humans eat is no longer a matter of choice; it has become a matter of life and death. Literally, the future of the whole planet rests on the decision of whether or not to eat meat. If humans chose to eat less meat the world that wouldn’t have to suffer the consequences (outlined above.) Vegetarianism is one possibility, as is Veganism; however the world would be
Let me begin with the words by George Bernard Shaw: ‘Animals are my friends and I don’t eat my friends’. This indicates the ethic aspect of meat consumption. In fact, people often don’t realize how animals are treated, but they can see commercial spots in their TV showing smiling pigs, cows or chickens, happy and ready to be eaten. My impression is that there can’t be anything more cruel and senseless. It is no secret that animals suffer ...