I have an intro to ethics book, definitely from pop psychology section, Would you eat your cat? And it has a bunch of normative ethics questions like this. Part of my toilet library.

In the scenario this old lady and her cat are Foodies and that when her cat died she wanted to eat her cat as tribute to him. Is it wrong? It has a bunch of silly situations like that. By Jeremy Stangroom.

i'll pass lol

Doesn't take an ethics whizz to figure out there are only two logically consistent arguments:

- Condone eating all meats including dogs
- Don't eat meat

obama ate dog. hes allegedly an american.



Doesn't take an ethics whizz to figure out there are only two logically consistent arguments:

- Condone killing anyone, including the innocent
- Don't kill anyone

or perhaps there is room for nuance.

false equivalence

are you using the word nuance because i said yesterday that you're unable to view things in a nuanced way? hah

No its not.

it illustrates the point remarkably accurately. there is nothing necessarily logically inconsistent to having nuanced and different criteria/views from the two listed.
kill all(whether its and animals or humans) and kill/eat none arent the only logically consistent options.



yes that probably has something to do with it, and because it applies.
you hypocritically are unable to see nuanced positions and declare any alternatives not logically consistent.

'you want to go back 1000 years to the days of cannibalism. because you can't accept nuance, ever. Probably why you're a leftist.'

someone could condone killing/eating less intelligent animals, or certain types of animals, or animals of certain colors, or invasive species, or for population control, or dangerous animals, or killing/eating animals in self defense or for strictly survival purposes.
much the same as someone could condone killing humans in certain situations only, like in defense etc.

there are countless potential logically consistent positions, not two.

Not reading your rage essays.

It's a false equivalence because personhood is defined for humans so we agree that the killing humans for food would be unethical. The philosophical argument on whether we can eat dogs is inherently linked to whether a dog has personhood, which hasn't been established yet.

the 94 is your IQ isnt it?

whether something is logically consistent or similar or not is not dependent on personhood or what 'we' agree to or social norms.
The statement was not that dogs are equal to humans in our society, but rather that people can have views on these topics that are consistent and nuanced in much the same way.

The case of when its ok to kill humans was a fitting reference, because virtually everyone accepts that there are certain situations where its ok and not ok. (or are at least familiar with those positions)
its not all or nothing.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Jan 1 2018 12:57pm

If someone condones killing cows but not killing dogs, then they are logically inconsistent. Which was the argument to begin with. Saying "someone COULD condone one over the other" is irrelevant and obvious. Someone could condone absolutely anything with no rhyme or reason whatsoever, the question is whether their position would then be logically consistent.