#21 - Ethicist: On average, animals raised on grain must be

[atierney]

Hi,

Yes, so I ruled out answer choice E, because the argument doesn't contend that humans should live off only grain, but rather that consumption would soon be morally unacceptable, and so I think if you were to choose E, you would probably be under the false guise that if meat is morally unacceptable to eat, then human diet will consist solely of grains. This is a rather subtle false dilemma, because while the argument does indeed mention only those two food groups, there is nothing within it that leads one to the conclusion they must comprise the entirety of the human dining experience.

Let me know if you have any further questions.

[KwakuS]

Hello,

Thanks for the responses so far. I came to the right answer, but not in the way that was described above, and I wanted to see if my reasoning was right. I chose B because it seemed to provide a way for people to have both plenty of wheat and meat. If cows were eating grass instead of wheat, that meant there wouldn't be as much of a wheat shortage, so people could still eat wheat. And then clearly if the cows were eating well people could still eat meat. This means that people could eat meat without ethical concerns. Is that a good way to think of the question?

Thanks,
Kwaku

[atierney]

Yes, I think that is a perfectly valid way to getting the correct answer. Your reasoning is fine, and one thing to note here is it doesn't matter so much as to how you got the right answer, as long the reasoning is valid and it makes sense to you. Having said that, yes this looks good!