The idea being debated
People often defend eating animals by saying: "An authority approves of it." It could be a religious leader, a holy book, a famous scientist, or an important philosopher.
How not to answer
Sometimes animal advocates reply: "Actually, that authority was against eating animals!" The author thinks this isn't the best answer. Even if the authority approved, that wouldn't show the practice is right.
The Euthyphro dilemma
Almost 2,400 years ago, the Greek philosopher Plato wrote a dialogue with a famous question. Adapted, it goes like this:
Does the authority approve of a practice because it's right, or does the practice become right because the authority approved it?
Option 1: "It becomes right because the authority approved it." Then, if the authority approved of something terrible, it would become right. Nobody who takes morality seriously accepts that.
Option 2: "The authority approves because it knows the practice is right." This is the option people who respect an authority usually choose. But then there's a reason that makes the practice right, and the authority just knows that reason. So what we need to discuss is the reason, not who said it.
What matters are the reasons
An argument is good or bad no matter who says it. If someone famous says 2 + 2 = 5, it's still wrong. If a child says 2 + 2 = 4, it's still right.
In short
- An authority approving of something isn't enough to make it fair.
- If the authority approves because there's a reason, we should discuss the reason.
- Good arguments count for what they say, not for who says them.