Animal rights activists are well-known for their faulty logic and conclusions based on misinformation. Today I’m going to examine their some of their logic.
P is Premise; C is Conclusion.
P: A ‘natural environment’ is best for an animal’s happiness and well-being.
C: An animal under human care must be suffering in some way.
The premise begs the question by assuming that natural environments are best for an animal’s well-being. Let’s examine the evidence.
Many animals under human care are given protection from dangers found in their ‘natural environment.’ All are virtually freed from the dangers of predators and parasites. Food shortage is less likely to be a problem. They are more likely to have protection from extreme weather conditions. If they are injured, they are more likely to receive medical treatment that could save their lives.
In the wild, many animals starve to death, die of fatal injuries, and rarely, if ever, live anywhere close to their potential life-spans. Animals slowing down in their older age will most likely be eaten by something else.
Dogs are social creatures by nature, and most of them have no trouble at all integrating socially with humans. Is it logical to assume that a dog must be suffering because its social needs are met by humans instead of other dogs?
Wild canines also have social structures that would make ARA’s hair stand up on end if they saw it repeated in the human home: Lower members of the pack are not allowed to eat until the alpha finishes. The comfiest resting spots go to the alphas. Lower members may get so stressed they leave – IE, run away from – the pack.
It is demonstratively false that a ‘natural environment’ is always best for an animal’s health and well-being. Therefore, this logic fails.
P: Some people have been seen mistreating their animals and livestock.
C: All or most people mistreat their animals.
This is what is known as a “hasty generalization.” Let’s put it this way:
P: Jan wears a plaid jacket to school.
C: All or most students wear plaid jackets to school.
We can’t assume that most students wear plaid jackets because Jan wears a plaid jacket! The logic now fails.
P1: All companion animals under human care are suffering in some way.
P2: Euthanizing animals is a painless way to end suffering.
C: Therefore, the best/only option is to put them all to sleep.
Here we have a premise that once again begs the question: that companion animals under human care are somehow “suffering.” Exactly how a dog or cat who has a comfortable home and receives three square meals a day can be said to be “suffering” (especially more than an animal would be “suffering” in the wild) has never been satisfactorily answered.
The second premise is (usually) true. But with the first premise begging the question, the conclusion is dodgy at best. The conclusion also begs the question by assuming that euthanasia is the best or only option.
P1: Bill says that PeTA’s killed most of the animals they took in last year.
P2: Bill is anti-PeTA.
C: Bill is being dishonest/is repeating misinformation.
This is an ad hominem attack: the assertion is assumed to be false because of the identity of the person presenting it. Let’s look at it this way.
P1: Lucy says pumpkin and squash are fruits, not vegetables.
P2: Lucy is a rival in the giant pumpkin contest and only started gardening this year.
C: Lucy must be lying/incorrect.
And yes, what they say about the animals is true.
P: Humans do not possess specific physical attributes (claws, sharp teeth) possessed by “true” predatorial animals.
C: Humans are not natural predators.
This logic is erroneous in that it assumes that certain physical attributes are necessary to be a “true” predator. We can easily turn this flawed logic on its head by representing it this way:
P: Bats do not possess feathers, which are required for every other warm-blooded animal to fly.
C: It is not natural for bats to fly.
Both premises ignore the fact that both creatures have attributes that render claws, fangs, and feathers unnecessary.
On the side, it should be noted that humans’ forward-facing eyes – very much a predatorial feature – and flexible fingers make them extremely suited for eating insects, as do primates such as chimpanzees. (Also, insects are often very safe to eat raw!) The advanced intelligence of the human mind makes it the next logical step to take down larger prey.
Also, chimpanzees hunt and kill colobus monkeys in the wild. They do not use claws or fangs to down their prey; they flail it to death against the ground or a tree limb. No claws or fangs required.
P1: Chimpanzees and gorillas eat mainly fruits and leaves.
P2: Humans are closely related to chimpanzees and gorillas.
C: Humans should eat mainly fruits and leaves.
First of all, we know that chimpanzees eat a significant amount of meat. Termites, birds, eggs, and small monkeys make up significant portions of a chimp’s menu.
Secondly, this is a false analogy. It does not necessarily follow that related species have identical nutritional requirements. Consider the following:
P1: Fruit bats eat fruit.
P2: Vampire bats are related to fruit bats.
C: Vampire bats should eat fruit.
The concept that vampire bats should eat fruit instead of blood is demonstratively false.
P: Humans do not find carrion appetizing.
C: Humans cannot be natural meat-eaters.
Many predators will not touch carrion. The conclusion is fallacious. Time to burn down this straw man:
P: Humans do not find rotting salad/someone’s lawn/a potted cactus appetizing.
C: Humans cannot be natural plant-eaters.
So are we gonna chuck the broccoli because of the fact that we don’t drool at the sight of a verdant golf course or a rotting squash? Unlikely! Thus we prove the first assertion illogical.
P: Humans do not daydream about killing animals.
C: Humans cannot be natural predators.
Another question-begger: how do we know that “natural predators” daydream about killing? We don’t. It also assumes that it’s natural to daydream about “natural” behavior. Is it? Just for grins and giggles, let’s put it this way:
P: Humans do not daydream about taking a crap or picking their noses.
C: It cannot be natural for humans to take a crap or pick their noses.
P: A child turned loose with a small animal will not instinctively kill the animal and eat it.
C: We cannot be natural predators.
This conclusion ignores the fact that many young predators must be taught to hunt by its parents. An untaught kitten won’t eat a mouse; it’ll bat it around and play with it. Teach a child to hunt, and you bet that kid is gonna hunt.
P: We cannot eat meat without cooking it first.
C: We cannot be natural predators.
People tout this while chowing down on grains and legumes as an alternate protein source. Funny thing is, our jaws can work through raw meat quite well, while legumes and grains must be cooked and/or crushed once they are dried. (And they dry extremely quickly once they reach maturity.) Our jaws cannot suitably work through the tough seeds.
The widespread consumption of grains is only a recent addition to the human lifestyle. Before the advent of cooking, agriculture, and milling devices, these grains would have been useless.
Thousands of years of cooking has taken the edge off our immune systems somewhat, but the human body can still easily digest raw meat. Can we say the same for a cup of uncooked beans or wheat?
Archeological evidence has shown that people were hunters long before they were farmers. Studies of human stools show that when people did eat seeds, they went undigested through the human body. Furthermore, humans can and do eat raw meat – and survive! There are many dishes that people enjoy today that use raw meat.
P: Albert Einstein was a vegetarian.
C: Vegetarianism is superior.
…Or replace Einstein with any famous figure who was a vegan/vegetarian.
This is an Appeal to Authority. It’s persuasive, but fallacious. Einstein was a physicist, not a dietitian. He ate an omnivorous diet for most of his life and did his best work while he still ate meat. He only switched a scant few years before he died.
Another figure often cited is Ghandi. Ghandi did not eat meat for cultural reasons, being of the Jain sect. He didn’t care if you chose to eat meat or not. For a time he even switched to an omnivorous diet.
Just because a famous person has brilliant ideas in one field doesn’t mean that all are correct. Brilliant men even produce humdingers in their own fields: Nicola Tesla was a brilliant man who made many contributions to science. Yet he didn’t have a lot of sense when it came to the way electricity worked – in fact, he was downright hostile toward Einstein’s theory of matter and energy!
P: If you do not stop using animals, activists will sabotage you.
C: We must stop using animals.
This is an ad baculum attack (Appeal to Force). It’s been a favorite tool of bullies and terrorists throughout the years. There is no rational basis behind it: only that if you do not agree with what the opposition is trying to force down your throat, they will beat you up until you do.
Let’s put it this way:
P: If you do not give your lunch money to the bully, he will beat you up.
C: You must give your lunch money to the bully.
LIGHTNING ROUND!
“A” is for Assertion, “R” is for Response.
A: If you claim to love animals and eat meat, you are a hypocrite.
R: If you claim to love plants and flowers and eat your vegetables, you are a hypocrite.
(Think about it.)
A: Violence toward animals leads to violence toward humans.
R: Psychopaths may start out by torturing animals – but they were screwed up to begin with. Excessively violent people will take out their aggressions on anything in their path, but were already screwed up to begin with. A NORMAL human will draw a clear line between killing animals and humans.
A: Teaching children compassion toward animals will encourage compassion toward humans.
R: Not necessarily. Part of human nature is to draw us/them boundaries. It’s what allowed early humans to be sympathetic to their own tribe while wiping out a competing tribe. A human taught compassion toward animals may still lump other humans into the “them” category. This actually happens all the time in practice.
A: Animals value their lives as much as humans do.
R: Call me again when you find a non-human animal who doesn’t want to die because he wants to compose a masterpiece or go on a cruise when he retires.