Use and abuse revisited: Response to Pluhar and Varner
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1) (1994)
| Abstract | In her recent Counter-Reply to my views, Evelyn Pluhar defends her use of literature on nutrition and restates her argument for moral vegetarianism. In his Vegan Ideal article, Gary Varner claims that the nutrition literature does not show sufficient differences among women, men, and children to warrant concern about discrimination. In this response I show how Professor Pluhar continues to draw fallacious inferences: she begs the question on equality, avoids the main issue in my ethical arguments, argues from irrelevancies, misquotes her sources, equivocates on context, confuses safety with morality, appeals to fear, confuses correlation with cause, fails to evaluate scientific studies, draws hasty conclusions from insufficient data, ignores a large amount of data which would call her views into question, does not follow good scientific or moral argumentation, objectionably exceeds the limits of her expertise, and resorts to scapegoating. I also argue that Professor Varner fails to make his case because he offers virtually no evidence from scientific studies on nutrition, relies on outdated and fallacious sources, makes unsupported claims, ignores evidence that would contravene his claims, draws hasty conclusions based on weakly supported hypotheses rather than facts, employs a double standard, appeals to ignorance, does not evaluate arguments from his sources, and makes anad hominem attack on a respected nutritionist when his focus should be on evaluating the evidence and arguments from the scientific studies themselves. Neither Varner nor Pluhar have responded sufficiently to the real issue in my arguments, that of discrimination and bias in the vegan ideal. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDavid Sztybel (2000). Response to Evelyn B. Pluhar's ``Non-Obligatory Anthropocentrism''. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (3-4):337-340.
Moti Mizrahi (2010). Take My Advice—I Am Not Following It: Ad Hominem Arguments as Legitimate Rebuttals to Appeals to Authority. Informal Logic 30 (4):435-456.
Gary E. Varner (1998). In Nature's Interests?: Interests, Animal Rights, and Environmental Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Evelyn B. Pluhar (1993). On Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science: A Counter Reply. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (2).
Gary E. Varner (1994). In Defense of the Vegan Ideal: Rhetoric and Bias in the Nutrition Literature. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1).
Evelyn Pluhar (1994). Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science Revisited. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1).
Kathryn Paxton George (1994). Discrimination and Bias in the Vegan Ideal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1).
Kathryn Paxton George (1992). The Use and Abuse of Scientific Studies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5 (2).
Gary E. Varner (1994). Rejoinder to Kathryn Paxton George. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1).
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads9 ( #113,980 of 549,037 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
