Nutritionists say that you cannot eat enough fruits and vegetables, arguing that it provides nutrition essential to health.
It's no use()with him
The point is this: without agreement on the rights of people, arguing about the rights of animals is fruitless. It leads the discussion to extremes at the outset: it invites you to think that animals should be treated either with the consideration humans extend to other humans, or with no consideration at all. This is a false choice. Arguing from the view that humans are different from animals in every relevant respect, extremists of this kind think that animals lie outside the area of moral choice. Any regard for the suffering of animals is seen as a mistake—a sentimental displacement of feeling that should properly be directed to other her humans. But the most elementary form of moral reasoning is to weigh others’ interests against one’s own. To see an animal in pain is enough, for most, to engage sympathy. When that happens, it is not a mistake, it is mankind’s instinct for moral reasoning in action, an instinct that should be encouraged rather than laughed at.
It is no () arguing about this problem, because our agent will never change his mind.
It's no use()with him
The point is this: without agreement on the rights of people, arguing about the rights of animals is fruitless. It leads the discussion to extremes at the outset: it invites you to think that animals should be treated either with the consideration humans extend to other humans, or with no consideration at all. This is a false choice. Arguing from the view that humans are different from animals in every relevant respect, extremists of this kind think that animals lie outside the area of moral choice. Any regard for the suffering of animals is seen as a mistake—a sentimental displacement of feeling that should properly be directed to other her humans. But the most elementary form of moral reasoning is to weigh others’ interests against one’s own. To see an animal in pain is enough, for most, to engage sympathy. When that happens, it is not a mistake, it is mankind’s instinct for moral reasoning in action, an instinct that should be encouraged rather than laughed at.
It is no () arguing about this problem, because our agent will never change his mind.
The point is this: without agreement on the rights of people, arguing about the rights of animals is fruitless. It leads the discussion to extremes at the outset: it invites you to think that animals should be treated either with the consideration humans extend to other humans, or with no consideration at all. This is a false choice. Arguing from the view that humans are different from animals in every relevant respect, extremists of this kind think that animals lie outside the area of moral choice. Any regard for the suffering of animals is seen as a mistake—a sentimental displacement of feeling that should properly be directed to other her humans. But the most elementary form of moral reasoning is to weigh others’ interests against one’s own. To see an animal in pain is enough, for most, to engage sympathy. When that happens, it is not a mistake, it is mankind’s instinct for moral reasoning in action, an instinct that should be encouraged rather than laughed at.