Ethic does not have anything to do with intelligence. Ethic is all about morals and values.
And moral values are things we can know
. We know they are properties which supervene on states of affairs
e.g. moral wrongness supervenes on an act of rape. That means they are cognitive in nature. That means they can be true or false. That means if rape is wrong, you ought not to do it. It is the sensible thing to do.
In any event, you only begged the question because you provided no argument showing that moral values are non-cognitive in nature.
There is no fact presented in the videos, no matter how many Wikipedia articles you try and link.
It has become apparent that you are out to lunch. The video displays states of affairs
. States of affairs are what is the case
. What is the case are facts
. Hence, the video displays facts
It's a clear appeal to emotion, which has no place if you're trying to talk about animal ethics on an intellectual level.
Now exactly what is an appeal to emotion:
Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument.
The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument.
It is common practice to dehorn livestock. source
. And the practice can cause significant agony. The videos are evidential support for my arguments
because i) they show how cattle dehorning is commonly practiced and ii) cattle dehorning does cause significant agony.
The videos are clearly evidential support fr this claim: given the agony cattle dehorning causes weighed against the reasons for subjecting animals to it, we have sufficient moral reasons not to act this way.
Hence, it is not an appeal to emotion.
Stop arguing about this unless you enjoy thinking like a nincompoop.
Thus far, you've failed to do that; you've fallen onto fallacies and other "arguments" that have nothing to do with facts, but everything to do with human emotion and subjective thoughts.
Given what I have shown above this is a non sequitur
on your part. Given how difficult it is for you to understand what facts are, I'm not surprised you don't apply fallacies properly either.
In other words, the moral wrongness of the videos isn't predicated on emotion. The support the arguments I've given because they show what is the case
I shake my head in disapproval at you, especially when you proclaim to be a philosophy student and you continually fall into the same traps that PHIL101 teaches you to avoid.
Funny that you say this and yet somehow I've managed to complete a masters degree in philosophy on this very topic. In any event, rather than point fingers, you need to think more carefully. And change your name.
Edited by SILLY GOOSE, 05 November 2012 - 01:12 PM.