Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?
Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another unnecessary thing... what logical fallacy is that?
You're viewing a single thread.
Can you elaborate?
I can provide an example, but you might hate me for it. I swear this is just to explain what I mean by this fallacy because I can't think of another example right now.
Justifying killing/using an animal for its skin/hide (e.g. leather or fur), because you're already killing the animal for its flesh, when in actual fact the killing of the animal doesn't need to take place at all (hypothetically).
Or justifying the killing of calves for veal as a necessary component of dairy production, when in fact dairy production isn't necessary, either.
I hope that makes sense
I don't think it's a fallacy, just really mixed up.
One I can think of is false dilemma/false dichotomy (a false premise that erroneously limits what options are available, and forces us to choose between 2 options (either cause unnecessary harm and waste the full usefulness of the harm, or cause unnecessary harm and maximise its usefulness) when there is a third option to not cause the unnecessary harm in the first place.
However that's more general and I was looking for something more specific that refers to assuming something is necessary because it's an unavoidable component of another thing which itself is unnecessary.
I was nerd sniped by this post for like an hour, and "false dichotomy" was the closest I could find, lol. You could say that the argument has an unstated co-premise ("the harm is necessary"), to which you are raising an "inference objection".
I appreciate your thoughts! And "nerd sniped" is a great term 😂 I agree, I think there may not be a specific name for this fallacy (though it could be described as somewhat of a false requirement or false necessity fallacy), nor is it widely recognised in logic literature (as is often the case; some might call it a "made-up fallacy" but indeed a verifiable one), but it probably falls under the more general fallacies of "false dilemma/false dichotomy", as well as "fallacy of composition":
"Fallacy of composition occurs when someone assumes that what's true for part of something must also be true for the whole or that if one thing is a necessary component of another thing, both must be necessary, even if it's not the case. In essence, it assumes that the properties of the parts apply to the whole."
nerd sniped
TIL a new term. 🙂
It's not a false dichotomy under that arrangement.
But I think you're just treating this as a soapbox for vegan BS now.
How is it not a false dichotomy? It erroneously forces us to choose between 2 options, when in actual fact there is a third option.
And, I'm really not. I was asked for an example/elaboration of how the fallacy might be used, and that was my best example. However it can likely apply to other situations too. If you recall, I initially just asked for what the fallacy might be called, without specifying any examples until I was asked for one.
Ok I have another example.
Another example might involve arguing that the disposal of hazardous waste is necessary because it's a byproduct of a particular manufacturing process, while ignoring the question of whether that manufacturing process itself is essential or necessary. This fallacy occurs when one justifies an undesirable or harmful element as a necessary component of a larger practice or system without questioning the necessity of the entire system or practice.
Neither of those are good examples. The killing of calves is not necessary for dairy production, they could always be sold to be raised to adulthood which is what happens to most of them since that's more profitable.
And the using of the animal skin/hide IF you're already killing it for food is a perfectly valid argument for using the skin/hide, the alternative being killing the animal and disposing of the skin/hide. You might then shift your argument to attack the need to eat the animal which is another (and a lot more complex) discussion, but the initial of why using the skin/hide is solved to both parties satisfaction so you reached a common ground, i.e. you agree that IF one were to kill the animal for food, the use of his skin/hide would be acceptable, now the argument needs to shift to whether it is acceptable to kill the animal for food.
If then the person argues he's killing for food because he's already using the skin/hide then he's using a circular argument. If he can provide an argument you consider acceptable for eating the animal you would also agree that it is acceptable to wear him.
It's an example which demonstrates the concept since in both cases, the overall process/system is unnecessary. Neither dairy farming nor killing animals for meat is necessary. It's not shifting the argument to say that the killing isn't necessary in the first place, that simply is the main point that the fallacy ignores.
With regard to dairy farming, it's not more profitable to raise, house a male calf who won't produce milk in their life, and feed them until adulthood (still only a few years old when they can live until 20-25) and kill them for beef. In most cases male calves get killed for veal, though they can simply be killed immediately and discarded, while some are raised until 1.5-2 years and killed for beef. Most female calves usually become dairy cows and then ultimately beef cows as well at 4-6 years old.
On a mass scale of dairy production, the killing of cattle for veal and beef is absolutely necessary. And yet, these components are part of an overall unnecessary system that is dairy production. Of course it's cruel in a variety of other ways too, but the primary use of the fallacy is assuming that we need to eat/utilise veal and beef due to them being necessary for dairy production, when dairy itself is unnecessary.
I love how everyone jumped on the example I used to defend these cruel practices instead of understanding how they were an example of the fallacy I was describing. And are trying to claim they're not an example of the fallacy when they clearly are. Shows the world we live in...
I'm going to come up with a neutral one here for you. Mostly so you can get better replies... I would need to do some research to find a name for it.
Jess wants to draw a picture of a bird, using only red and black. She gets her art supplies out and finds she has no green markers. She cannot draw a picture of a green field without a green marker. Jess says she can't draw her bird picture because she has no green marker.
Or...
When Alan plays tennis, his knee hurts. Alan has a strange condition that his knee only hurts after he plays tennis. When his knee hurts, he has to put ice on it. He stops playing tennis for good. Alan needs to get a new refrigerator. One is affordable with no ice machine, but another is unaffordable and has an ice machine. Alan bemoans he can't get the refrigerator he needs because he needs the ice machine for his knee.
One of these?
Thanks, that's almost what I mean, but I might modify your examples slightly. They're good examples to work from lol (I'm pretty bad at coming up with scenarios that fit what I'm talking about). Sorry if this sounds kind of crazy:
Jess wants to draw a picture of a bird. For this, since Jess is completely broke and homeless, she would need to rob an art store to get art supplies. (Let's say for sake of example that there is genuinely no other way for her to obtain art supplies to draw the picture). Jess justifies this act of robbing the store in order to draw her bird picture because there's no other way she can make the picture otherwise. She makes the claim that robbing the art store is necessary in absolute terms, while overlooking or ignoring the fact that drawing the picture of the bird isn't necessary in the first place (even though she might desire to draw it, she doesn't need to, and therefore doesn't need to rob the art store, either).
Or...
When Alan plays tennis, his knee hurts. Alan has a strange condition that his knee only hurts after he plays tennis. When his knee hurts, he has to put ice on it, which requires an expensive refrigerator with an ice machine since that's the only way he can possibly get a good supply of ice in his situation (hypothetically). Alan then decides to buy the expensive refrigerator with stolen money from his grandma, and claims that it's an absolute requirement for him to, without considering the fact that he doesn't actually need to play tennis, though he might want to.
In both cases, someone is claiming that something (an action, state, etc) is necessary overall, because it's part of a larger goal/endeavour; without addressing the reality that it would only be necessary as a component of that larger goal that it would be in service of, if that larger goal was necessary, which in fact it isn't (and therefore neither are any components that would be required to achieve it).
I hope this makes sense :)
And I'll paste my other example here:
Another example might involve arguing that the disposal of hazardous waste is necessary because it's a byproduct of a particular manufacturing process, while ignoring the question of whether that manufacturing process itself is essential or necessary. This fallacy occurs when one justifies an undesirable or harmful element as a necessary component of a larger practice or system without questioning the necessity of the entire system or practice.
I think this makes sense!
It appears to be a type of irrelevant conclusion.
An irrelevant conclusion... is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid and sound, but (whose conclusion) fails to address the issue in question.
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06a.htm
Is this what you were thinking?
I know it's just an example but I wanted to point out that almost no calves end up as veal.
Actually almost all male calves do (in the dairy industry), because they can't produce milk and it wouldn't be profitable or financially feasible to keep them alive otherwise
"Male dairy calves are surplus to the requirement of dairy production, and thus, are often sold from the dairy farm in early life. In the United States, male calves are generally sold within days of birth (Shivley et al., 2019) for veal or dairy beef production (Perdue and Hamer, 2017). Raising young male dairy calves for meat, particularly veal, is a contentious issue that has received public scrutiny in the United States (e.g., California Prop 2, 2008) and globally (reviewed by Bolton and von Keyserlingk, 2021)."
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fanim.2022.1000897/full
Source for number of dairy cows in the usa
Source for annual veal production in the usa
thousands of head of cows = 9448.0
actual cows = 1000 * thousands of head of cows
annual male calves = .5 * actual cows
veal weight of calves in pounds = 450
annual veal production in millions of pounds = 58
annual percentage of bobby calves that become veal = ((annual veal production in millions of pounds * 1000000) / (veal weight of calves in pounds * annual male calves))*100 = 2.728384608147521%
the vast majority of calves are brought to full weight before slaughter
edit:
this user is using this thread to advocate for a position that clearly isn't supported by the facts, but by the ideology they are evangelizing here. if you want to waste your time watching me waste my time arguing with someone who is not engaging in good faith, this is the thread for you. otherwise it comes down to this: they think dairy is unnecessary and cruel and therefore immoral. any problem i've pointed to in their position is glossed over and turned into a personal attack.
I think your "veal weight" is off by an order of magnitude. At four days old, when they are sent to the slaughterhouse, they weigh less than 40kg each, which equates to a ballpark of 10kg "veal" per calf.
I've never heard of veal calves being slaughtered at 4 days. that's when they are sent to a veal farm, to fatten up a bit.
It is the industry standard in NZ. Often times the price isn't high enough to justify transport costs and they are simply shot instead.
i just want to make sure i understand what you're saying: veal in new zealand is from 4-day-old calves? is that the story you want to stick with?
450 is the slaughter weight for veal. 3/4 ton for beef. but let's say it's 150. it's still a slim minority of calves.
I'm sorry but your math doesn't reflect the reality of most dairy farms. The male calves are indeed mainly killed for veal. And I didn't say most calves are killed for veal, I said most male calves. Indeed, most female calves are raised to become dairy cows, and some male calves are raised to become beef cows, or bulls used for their semen for artificially inseminating dairy cows, or in some cases for mating.
Overall you might say then that most calves are raised until a few years old for slaughter, either as dairy cows, dairy bulls or beef cattle (keep in mind they can live until 20-25 years), but most male calves are killed as babies for veal.
"Because male cattle cannot produce milk, dairy producers treat these animals as disposable—or “surplus.” Some are sold to be raised for beef, likely on crowded feedlots with up to 150,000 cattle crammed into filthy enclosures. Others—in fact, the majority—will be sold for veal. The remaining calves will be killed shortly after birth."
My math is based on numbers from the USDA. your sources are narratives from biased organizations. Even they aren't dishonest enough to not admit that male calves are raised for beef. they prefer to focus on the veal production because they think it's more horrific but try to pin them down on the actual number of cattle that are brought to full weight before slaughter.
USDA is inherently biased toward animal farming, and the first source I linked was a scientific study. But I'm not necessarily denying what USDA says. Holding a bias doesn't automatically make something untrue. You didn't quote anything they said, you made some hasty calculations based on their statistics, which seemed to overlook the distinction between male calves and female calves. You used this to make a statement that I never disagreed with, because I was making a different one. (One could call that a strawman fallacy).
Humane League is an animal welfare organisation. Of course they're going to focus on the most ethically unsound aspects of animal farming, since that's their purpose, but nothing they said was false. They did acknowledge that some male calves in the dairy industry are raised for beef, but that most are killed for veal.
You used this to make a statement that I never disagreed with, because I was making a different one.
I am the one who made the claim about the amount of cattle that become veal. I then supported it when you said that I was wrong. nothing you've provided actually contradicts what I have said or the data that I provided.
most are not killed for veal
Most what? Calves or male calves? Because it's factually incorrect to say that most male calves aren't killed for veal. They evidently are.
But let's ignore that for a second. The fact that any calves in the dairy industry are killed for veal, or even for beef (at only a few years older, still a fraction of their natural lifespan), is of course a harm, whether you agree with it or not. Killing an animal is harming them, no matter if they're a baby animal or a few-year-old animal.
It's a harm toward animals that some might justify as a necessary component of dairy production, which it is. But this ignores the fact that dairy production itself isn't necessary. And that was the crux of the fallacy I'm alluding to.
Most what? Calves or male calves? Because it's factually incorrect to say that most male calves aren't killed for veal. They evidently are.
I did the math. there is no way more than 5% of male calves become veal, no matter how much propaganda has been produced to the contrary.
do you need help with the algebra or arithmetic?
The fact that any calves in the dairy industry are killed for veal, or even for beef (at only a few years older, still a fraction of their natural lifespan), is of course a harm, whether you agree with it or not. Killing an animal is harming them, no matter if they're a baby animal or a few-year-old animal.
ok....
It's a harm toward animals that some might justify as a necessary component of dairy production, which it is. But
no, it's not.
dairy production itself isn't necessary. And that was the crux of the fallacy I'm alluding to.
my first comment was acknowledging that it's just an example.
those are raw numbers. your scientific study doesn't support the claim that you're making.
I need sour cream for my tacos, and I need tacos.
What where's the "unnecessary" part?
I probably don't need tacos specifically..
Sounds like somebody's never had a tacomergency before.
To be technical about it, you can have tacos without sour cream, too. So I think both are unnecessary (either independently, or for each other) in this case 😂
Ackshually tacos with crema are super tacos.