In Chapter 4 of Eating Animals, Safran Foer brings up the "Myth of Animal Consent," the defense commonly used by ranchers to argue that animals agree to give themselves up as food for humans as long as they can live a "safe" and "protected" life in these factory farms--the idea stemming from the belief that nature is cruel and man can offer a safe haven (even if the last stop on that joyous ride called "safe haven" is death and consumption).
The Fallacy--Misinterpreting the Evidence: It seems that these ranchers are misinterpreting the evidence that there is of nature being cruel to justify their process of poultry farming. It also seems that there is a colossal misinterpretation of the feelings of the animals themselves. There is very little evidence to show what animals actually think at any given moment, so that evidence does not even provide a solid foundation for the farmer's argument.
These farmers may also be applying the "straw man fallacy," creating a side of the argument that is easier to justify for themselves, although I don't think that this fallacy applies as much as the first one.
No comments:
Post a Comment