Summary Of The Unsound Argument

In Gary Francione and Anna Charlton’s argument, it presents a valid, but unsound argument. The argument has 5 premises that lead to the conclusion of the argument. Premise one explains animal have some moral value, but less then a human. This can be seen as a anthropocentric view for it as human centered focus and clearly states that humans have more value than non-humans. In the Anthropocentric environmental ethnics reading, the author states, “…Nature has made all things for the sake of man” (Murray, Anthropocentric environmental studies ethnics, pg. 1). This illustrates the idea that moral of non humans is extrinsic which means its valued for external reasons (Murray, February 7, 2017). Premise two shows that the animals lose in any necessary conflict. It seems to not include other non-humans besides animals as capable of winning conflict such as plants which

This helps implement the idea there is an anthropocentric view for not torturing animals for it can lead to harm with humans. Premise 4 shows that any suffering is characterized as unnecessary. Premise 5 believes all animal for foods use unnecessary suffering, which is a false premise for not all use suffering on animals to make food. An example would be a slaughter house for cows that use euthanasia to kill them to avoid suffering. The conclusion then states human consumption of any products is justified. Since premise 2 and 4 are considered to be false, this makes it un-sound argument, but valid none the less. This argument altogether commits a fallacy because of the composition fallacy. The composition fallacy includes an erroneous characteristic from parts of something to the whole (Robert Taylor, pg.1). The conclusion provides it by claiming consumption of animal food is unjustified even though it shown by premise 5 not all suffering used and that in premise one says humans have more moral value than animals making the conclusion erroneous and that the the composition fallacy is being