Since people often discuss fallacies, animal rights and such on the debates forums, I want you to present an article I found on the net, that deals with these issues, a treat for the experts .......
11/5/2004 - 3:15 PM PST
By Matt Abbott
The radical animal rights organization known as PETA – which stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals – is no stranger to controversy. Indeed, for several years, the organization’s numerous ad campaigns, all of which implicitly or explicitly advocate veganism and vegetarianism, have offended more than a few persons. One particularly offensive and fallacious PETA ad campaign featured photos of World War II Holocaust victims side by side with photos of dead or sickly animals. The ads explicitly demonstrate the fallacies of “arguing by analogy” and “appealing to pity.” Other arguments made by PETA utilize the “mob appeal” and “red herring” fallacies.
An analogy is a comparison that works on more than one level, and it is possible to use analogy effectively when reasoning inductively. 1 Oftentimes, however, the analogy used is far-fetched at best. Such is the case with PETA’s Holocaust analogy.
Also, besides being offensive to certain Jewish groups - Ed Morgan, national president of the Canadian Jewish Congress said that comparing Holocaust victims to animals “sinks to such sordid depths that one has trouble comprehending the depraved thinking behind it”2 - equating the suffering and death of humans with the suffering and death of animals is contrary to the natural order, thereby making it a false analogy.
Writers are often justified in appealing to the pity of their readers when the need to inspire this emotion is closely related to whatever they are arguing for, and when the entire argument does not rest on this appeal alone. 3 The PETA Holocaust ad wants the viewer to feel sorrow and disgust at the fact that animals are seemingly being treated as Holocaust victims were treated during World War II. However, the extermination of animals for the purpose of providing food and clothing cannot be placed in the same moral category as the extermination of human beings for the purpose of creating a “master race.”
The “mob appeal” fallacy encourages the viewer to join the proverbial throngs of people who allegedly are doing a particular act, lest he or she is left out in the cold. Such a fallacy can be found in the following PETA statement: “Every time you choose to buy a leather jacket or leather shoes, you sentence an animal to a lifetime of suffering. Join the millions of consumers who are realizing that ‘hairless fur’ is something we can do without….” 4
Finally, PETA throws in a red herring - that is, an argument that has little if anything to do with the issue at hand – in the following assertion: "Many researchers believe that vegetarianism is the only way to feed a growing human population. 5 A Population Reference Bureau report stated, "If everyone adopted a vegetarian diet and no food were wasted, current [food] production would theoretically feed 10 billion people, more than the projected population for the year 2050." 6 The reasoning in that assertion, however, doesn’t prove that vegetarianism is the only way to feed a growing human population. 7 No evidence is given to show that a growing human population cannot be fed in a non-vegetarian way. 8
In conclusion, PETA’s Holocaust ad campaign is problematic primarily because of the fallacies involved: a false analogy and appealing to pity, without regard for the natural order. Additionally, PETA has put forth other dubious arguments involving the “mob appeal” fallacy and the “red herring” fallacy.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhile I agree with morst of this analysis, I find it interesting that a whole paragraph of this article is itself fallacious:
Since people often discuss fallacies, animal rights and such on the debates forums, I want you to present an article I found on the net, that deals with these issues, a treat for the experts .......
11/5/2004 - 3:15 PM PST
By Matt Abbott
The radical animal rights organization known as PETA – which stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of ...[text shortened]... forth other dubious arguments involving the “mob appeal” fallacy and the “red herring” fallacy.
...comparing Holocaust victims to animals “sinks to such sordid depths that one has trouble comprehending the depraved thinking behind it”2 - equating the suffering and death of humans with the suffering and death of animals is contrary to the natural order, thereby making it a false analogy.
The fallacies here should be obvious to even the casual reader. First, PETA wasn't comparing holocaust victims to animals, PETA was comparing the way holocaust victims were treated to the way animals are treated. The analogy is one concerning the manner of treatment, and not concerning similarities between human victims and animal victims. Second, PETA is not equating the suffering and death of humans to the suffering and death of animals. They are not saying that the death of a human is no more tragic than the death of an animal. Again, the analogy is one of treatment. You can read PETA's comment on this analogy (which explicitly disavowes the straw-man interpretation provided by Mr. Abbot and seconded by Mr. Morgan of the CFC) at the following location:
http://www.boycottwatch.org/misc/PETA-Vs-Holocaust2.htm
Originally posted by ivanhoeI think PETA has every right to associate human victims with animal victims. It is called expressing an opinion and is still legal in many countries.
Since people often discuss fallacies, animal rights and such on the debates forums, I want you to present an article I found on the net, that deals with these issues, a treat for the experts .......
11/5/2004 - 3:15 PM PST
By Matt Abbott
The radical animal rights organization known as PETA – which stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of ...[text shortened]... forth other dubious arguments involving the “mob appeal” fallacy and the “red herring” fallacy.
Originally posted by Matt AbbottQuoted for comedy; I love it when people say things like 'the natural order' without justification, especially as it's an expression used in mathematics. 😀
equating the suffering and death of humans with the suffering and death of animals is contrary to the natural order, thereby making it a false analogy.
Otherwise most of the article sounds reasonable.
Originally posted by AcolyteHmm. I don't know how closely you follow FW, but the phrase 'false analogy' should have sent you into uncontrollable laughter.
Quoted for comedy; I love it when people say things like 'the natural order' without justification, especially as it's an expression used in mathematics. 😀
Otherwise most of the article sounds reasonable.
I actually have a few problems with the very concept of a "fallacy" too. What virtue does sticking strictly to the rules of supposedly logical reasoning play, except pleasing the self-appointed heirs of Aristotle?
For example, this supposed mob rule fallacy. It seems to me that a perfectly legitimate mode of presenting an argument is "everyone else in the world believes this, so you should too." When direct evidence is lacking, circumstantial evidence may be used -- and the opinion of the populace is certainly at least minimally circumstantially probative of the truth. (Otherwise we can kiss this democracy nonsense goodbye too.)
The same with appeals to authority. It is more efficient to say "Steven Hawkins says nothing can go faster than the speed of light" than to prepare a tract on theoretical physics. And, for the purposes of most communications, it's just as useful. I, knowing nothing about physics, am MORE likely to be able to access the truth about nothing moving faster than the speed of light by "Steven Hawkins says so" than I am by a discourse on special relativity.