View Single Post
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jane
 
Posts: n/a
Default Want to be a vegetarian


"swamp" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:16:25 -0400, LordSnooty
> > wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
> >>
> >>>Jon wrote:
> >>>
> >>>(snip)
> >>>
> >>>> "vegans", or so-called
> >>>> "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
> >>>> fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
> >>>>
> >>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
> >>>>
> >>>> I do not eat meat;
> >>>>
> >>>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
> >>>
> >>>Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?
> >>>
> >>>The above should go like this:
> >>>
> >>> If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
> >>>
> >>> I do not eat meat;
> >>>
> >>> Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
> >>
> >>As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be:
> >>
> >>If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
> >>
> >>I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer
> >>and die,

> >
> >Very good.
> >
> >>and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and
> >>suffering my own diet causes.

> >
> >What death and suffering?

>
> That caused by your very existence.
>
> >you have scientific, peer reviewed data that
> >a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife
> >deaths?

>
> The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one
> showing starvation will cause starvation.
>

That's a false analogy, since one event (starving) will always cause
the same condition (starvation), but the same can't be said for the
other half of your analogy where one event (eating vegetables)
will always cause the same condition (collateral deaths). Before
showing you the fallacy in your argument over collateral deaths,
look again at the first premise in Jonathan Ball's syllogism at the
start of this thread.

"If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die."

This proposition is false, since the event (If I eat meat) always
assumes a necessary condition (I cause animals to suffer and die).

A necessary condition for an event is something which is
absolutely required to exist or happen if the event is to occur.
Ergo; causing suffering and death to animals is absolutely
required to exist or must happen if I am to eat meat.

A sufficient condition for an event, on the other hand, does
not have to exist for the event to occur, but if it exists, then
the event will occur. Ergo; causing animals to suffer and die
isn't absolutely required to exist or happen, since meat can
be sourced from animals which no one has caused to suffer
or die, but if it does suffer and die from natural causes or
accident, then I am still able to eat meat.

A more formal way for saying that one thing, p, is a sufficient
condition for some other thing, q, would be to say "if p then q,"
which is a standard hypothetical proposition. Confusing
necessary and sufficient conditions is one way to understand
how some of the rules of inference with hypothetical propositions
can be violated. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, for
example, makes the assumption that a sufficient condition is also
a necessary condition.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glo..._necessary.htm

Another example of affirming the consequent is shown in your
proposition, "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur."

This proposition is false; since the event (If I eat vegetables)
always assumes a necessary condition (collateral deaths will
occur).
Ergo; collateral deaths are absolutely required to exist or
must happen if I am to eat vegetables.

For the sufficient condition; collateral deaths aren't absolutely
required to exist or happen, but if they do exist, then I am still
able to eat vegetables. The fallacy of affirming the consequent,
for this example makes the same assumption as the last in that
a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition.
<snip>