Here, let me help you.
This argument is valid. It is not sound.
I’m actually against the death penalty. But I am also against forming strongly held beliefs for no reason and occasionally stumbling on the correct conclusion by accident.
I’m not vegan, by the way. I just find hypocrisy kind of gross.
Versus:
Clearly, this argument is not sound. You’ll need to come up with another.
For a more nuanced discussion on this topic I’d recommend a modern Ethics textbook, such as Shafer-Landau’s Living Ethics, which breaks down arguments over the death penalty to their syllogistic form.
EDIT: more examples.
Etcetera
Like I said, I’m not vegan. I just enjoy acknowledging when huge numbers of people reach grossly irrational conclusions.
I’m not vegan. But I’m also not a hypocrite.
War is bad because it consigns millions of innocent creatures to death and suffering.
Factory farming is bad because it consigns BILLIONS of innocent creatures to death and suffering per year.
How do you wrap your tiny morally imbecilic mind around the former but not the latter?
I’m trying to help meat eaters out of their dilemma. They murder innocent animals but complain about killing evil animals. They eat the former but not the latter.
- Do you believe it can ever be moral to take an innocent person’s life?
Absolutely not. But you’ll agree this guy is not innocent.
- Do you believe that our judicial system has never wrongly convicted an innocent person and sentenced them to death?
That line of reasoning would be paralyzing. There’s a high chance that you’ll kill an innocent person while driving, but you’re still driving. I suppose the alternative is even worse.
Also not veganism
Eating meat is the opposite of veganism, fyi
Also, I’m not vegan.
Human animals who murder other animals for food get to keep doing it —> murderers get to die for a good cause. Everyone’s happy!
“Murder” is an illegal killing. This is not an illegal killing. It’s also not an immoral killing, but that’s a separate conversation.
deleted by creator
By “human” you might mean
We should acknowledge that countless creatures meet condition 1 but not 2. So what?
Do you dehumanize bears when you acknowledge that they lack certain abilities? I like bears. They’re great! Doesn’t mean I have to pretend that they’re civilized or intelligent.
I’m not sure if that research’s been done, but it would be highly surprising if psychopaths were not the ones in favor of limiting women’s reproductive freedom.
What I can tell you is that abortion rights are an “easy” moral issue. Every year or two there’s a survey among professional philosophers, who of course disagree on basically everything. However, the item with the most consensus is abortion. That’s because there are simply no good arguments against abortion rights. The only reason someone might be against reproductive freedom is… well… moral imbecility.
We already know that moral reasoning exists on a spectrum of competence. That some people are so bad at it that it’s pathological, and that some percentage of these people are also narcissistic enough to be called “psychopaths.” It’s a disorder; it’s on a spectrum, and anti-abortion zealots are on that spectrum.
Opinions on abortion are strong indicators of psychopathy. Nobody against legal abortion has a functional moral sense. Some are just incredibly morally stupid. Others are religious zombies. But they’re all dangerous and fundamentally animalistic. We can coexist with these creatures, obviously — we already do. But the widespread delusion that they’re just like us has been incredibly dangerous and possibly world-ending. It’s no coincidence they’re the same “people” who support pollution and celebrate ecological depredation.
I’m actually surprised it took people this long to realize how truly horrible Intel leadership has been over the past 2 decades.
deleted by creator
I’m against the death penalty, so I’m not sure what “moral position” of mine you’re attacking exactly. Our only point of friction so far has been over the use basic logic when formulating strong opinions.