You gotta love 'em. They're loyal, generally happy go-lucky, fun loving adventurers.
Not everyone loves their uncanny ability to chase a ball endlessly. But, despite the existence of dog haters (who often also happen to be cat lovers) dogs have hit the big time ... the jackpot.
They are one of the select species that humans (in many societies) are willing to stand up for. But why? Why do they deserve special treatment? The simple answer is that they don't. They're not more deserving of simple respect than any other sentient species.
Many humans and societies have extended our moral communities to include dogs, cats, horses, and a few other species.
At the core of this quandary lies fertile philosophical ground, which I am ashamed to say most philosophers or philosophically minded individuals leave untouched. This blog is for investigating our the logic around animal ethics, veganism, and their supporters and detractors.
The Foundational Vegan Argument
The basic argument that potentially leads to a vegan lifestyle can be stated syllogistically, as follows:
Causing unnecessary suffering to other sentient animals (human and nonhuman) is morally wrong.
Many of the ways that humans use animals on a day to day basis causes unnecessary suffering (e.g. for food, sport, clothing).
Therefore, the ways that most humans use other animals on a day to day basis are morally wrong.
As you may have gathered this doesn't lead inextricably to a vegan lifestyle. It doesn't even lead to any animal rights; however, if you accept the argument, it reminds us that there is a lot of unnecessary suffering in this world and we ought to do something about it.
Hi, Ben. I was searching for realistic or useful examples of syllogisms (not "All humans are mortal. Ben is a human...") and I found your blog. I stumbled on this page first http://logicalveganism.blogspot.com/p/vegan-arguments.html.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to point out perhaps a correction in the syllogism, but you've done so in the post here any ways. Here's my quick edit:
Yours on the otehr post:
Causing unecessary harm to sentient beings (H) is wrong (W).
Ways we exploit animals for products (E) is wrong (W).
.: Ways we exploit animals for products (E) is wrong (W).
Corrected (I think :-) )
Ways we exploit animals for products (E) is Causing unecessary harm to sentient beings (H).
Causing unecessary harm to sentient beings (H) is wrong (W).
.: Ways we exploit animals for products (E) is wrong (W).
I like the argument and this kind of thinking has prompted me to look into sustainability. I run a blog bout it and food at www.tayibfarms.com. Peace