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.

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 :)

I think they can certainly apply to any situation where the logic is flawed, so arguing that something is necessary since it’s part of another system which itself is unnecessary, is a logical fallacy

If we accept that something is a necessary component of an unnecessary system, but then use that fact to argue that the component is necessary in absolute terms, that’s a logical fallacy given that it’s not absolutely necessary if the system it’s a part of isn’t absolutely necessary

After researching I found it can be called a false necessity fallacy or false requirement fallacy

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 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.”

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 😂

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.”

https://thehumaneleague.org/article/veal-animal#:~:text=Because male cattle cannot produce,will be sold for veal.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/26/dairy-dirty-secret-its-still-cheaper-to-kill-male-calves-than-to-rear-them

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.

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

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 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

Or, maybe both pronouncers (the “jiff” gang and the “giff” crowd) will team up against me for saying that. At least we’ll have harmony for most people if that’s the case, and I’ll be a sacrifice to keep the peace.

It’s pronounced GIF (sounding out each letter), like in that ‘If Google Was A Guy’ CollegeHumor video. Just so that it doesn’t annoy or antagonise anyone for a meaningless purpose. Everyone wins.

Interesting, other responses here say it’s the other way round, with morality being more societally-derived and ethics being either more personally interpreted, or more practical/logical in spite of culturally conventional moral ideas.

Part of why I asked this question is because I seem to see morality and ethics defined to mean the opposite of each other in different places, and this kind of proves that to be the case lol

I completely agree. Would you, in theory, be in support of giving rights to all sentient beings where possible, ensuring the best possible treatment and experiences of all individuals that have a conscious/subjective experience of life?

I would ideally like to see humanity extend moral/ethical consideration beyond humans to all animals, hypothetical alien animals, sentient AI, or any other sentients that emerged in future. I believe sentientism is the core underlying philosophy behind this idea of ethics.

Thanks for your reply. :)

Wouldn’t ethics then define right and wrong in terms of its impact on the well-being of sentient beings, rather than just human well-being?

And I suppose the difference with morality might be that certain actions that don’t necessarily negatively impact other sentient beings, such as recreational drug use, might still be considered immoral by some due to cultural norms rather than practical considerations about the rightness or wrongness of them?

So then the raw vegan influencer that starved herself to death, how isn’t that proof that vegan diets are unhealthy? She was only having juice smoothies and not drinking any water.

Thanks, and this is proof that vegan diets are unhealthy, right?

Add ‘woke’ to that list tbh. I have no idea how that word went from meaning a good thing to meaning a bad thing. If you watch the first ‘Shazam!’ movie, the word is used in a positive light when a character tells someone to get woke. Now at the time of the second Shazam! movie the word means something different with a negative connotation.

deleted by creator