3 ms·
Since the original question is an is question (specifically, “Given that you want to eat Lobster, what is the method that will get it to your plate with the lea
by scruffyprodigy 9y ago
Since the original question is an is question (specifically, “Given that you want to eat Lobster, what is the method that will get it to your plate with the least amount of suffering”), I’m not sure why you’re trying to turn it into an ought question (about whether we should all be vegetarians)
- rosser 9y agoI'm really not. The is in this particular thread is what "literally the entirety of the natural world" thinks is "food". The ought is whether we should "think" likewise, or use our purported rationality to consider the implications of that behavior. The "naturalistic fallacy" — normally used to deride people we like to think, rightly or otherwise, are less rational than ourselves — is, literally, "if it's natural, it must be good/right/proper." The notion under discussion is exactly that. It's not about whether or not we should all be vegetarians; it's about fallacious "arguments" that we shouldn't.