3 ms·
I think they're referring to the "appeal to nature" [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
by eivarv 9y ago
I think they're referring to the "appeal to nature" [0].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
- aspaceman 9y agoI was indeed referring to this logical fallacy. I don't see how treating animals well removes us from the ecosystem. We have already drastically changed the ecosystem of the Earth - might as well do some positive things for it.
- freeflight 9y agoBut if you are so skeptical of the "appeal to nature" how would you decide what's positive for Earth/the ecosystem? Wouldn't you just come back to the conclusion of "What's good for nature must be natural or else it can't be part of nature?" Imho it's that logic which most "appeals to nature" are built upon.
- michaelmrose 9y agoBy figuring out a list of priorities and balancing the benefits of different strategies in terms of those priorities?
- virmundi 9y agoVery hard to do. You've got a form of utilitarian calculus going on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus