The Ethical Dilemma: The Burger Murders

1. The Argument and Syllogism:

A. In this video, the speakers, George Siedel and Christine Ladwig, discuss the ethical dilemma surrounding the production and consumption of hamburgers. They argue that the current methods of hamburger production lead to significant environmental and ethical consequences. They highlight the negative impacts on deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and animal welfare. The speakers also emphasize the importance of consumer awareness and responsibility in addressing this issue.

B. The three parts of the syllogism used by the speakers are:

• Major Premise: Current methods of hamburger production contribute to deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and animal cruelty.
• Minor Premise: These consequences are ethically and environmentally problematic.
• Conclusion: Therefore, consumers should be aware of the consequences of their hamburger consumption and make more responsible choices.

2. Testing the Syllogism:

A. The argument presented in the video demonstrates deductive reasoning. The speakers provide specific premises and draw a logical conclusion based on those premises. They present evidence and facts to support their claims, making a strong case for their argument.

B. Testing the deductive syllogism, we can determine its validity and soundness. The syllogism is valid because the conclusion logically follows from the premises. The major premise establishes the negative impacts of hamburger production, and the minor premise connects these impacts to ethical and environmental concerns. The conclusion, therefore, logically follows from these premises.

3. Rhetorical Appeals:

A. In this video, the speakers utilize all three rhetorical appeals: ethos, pathos, and logos. They establish ethos by presenting themselves as knowledgeable experts on the topic. They use logos by presenting factual information and statistics to support their argument. For example, they provide data on deforestation rates and greenhouse gas emissions related to hamburger production. Finally, they appeal to pathos by evoking emotions through vivid descriptions of animal cruelty and environmental destruction caused by current hamburger production methods.

These rhetorical appeals enhance the persuasiveness of the argument by establishing credibility (ethos), providing logical evidence (logos), and appealing to the viewers’ emotions (pathos). By utilizing all three appeals effectively, the speakers engage the audience and make a compelling case for responsible hamburger consumption.

4. Rhetorical Devices and Logical Fallacies:

A. One specific rhetorical device used in this video is hyperbole. The speakers employ exaggerated language to emphasize the severity of the issues associated with hamburger production. For example, they refer to “burger murders” to create a sense of shock and urgency. This rhetorical device is deliberate and serves to capture the audience’s attention and highlight the gravity of the situation.

One specific logical fallacy that can be identified is a slippery slope fallacy. The speakers suggest that if consumers continue to support current hamburger production methods, it will lead to irreversible environmental damage and animal cruelty. While there are valid concerns about these consequences, presenting them as an inevitable outcome without considering potential solutions or alternatives oversimplifies the issue.

The use of hyperbole and slippery slope fallacy adds impact to the argument but may also weaken it if not supported by strong evidence and reasoning.

5. Moral Reasoning:

A. The specific kind of moral reasoning demonstrated in this video is consequentialism. Consequentialism focuses on the outcomes or consequences of actions when determining whether they are morally right or wrong. The speakers highlight the negative consequences of current hamburger production methods, such as environmental destruction and animal cruelty, to argue for more responsible consumer choices.

The use of consequentialist moral reasoning in this video is deliberate as it aims to persuade viewers by appealing to their sense of responsibility for the consequences of their actions. By emphasizing the negative outcomes associated with hamburger consumption, the speakers seek to encourage viewers to make more ethical choices.

6. Reaction and Reflection:

The most interesting takeaway from this video is the interconnectedness between our everyday food choices and larger ethical and environmental issues. It highlights how something as simple as eating a hamburger can have far-reaching consequences on deforestation, climate change, and animal welfare.

Applying the course concepts deepens my understanding of the ethical dimensions behind seemingly mundane actions. It shows how moral reasoning, rhetorical appeals, and logical fallacies shape persuasive arguments. It also reminds me of the importance of critically analyzing information presented to us and considering the broader implications of our choices.

Overall, this video prompts reflection on our individual responsibilities as consumers and encourages us to consider the ethical and environmental impact of our food choices. It underscores the need for awareness, education, and collective action to address complex ethical dilemmas like those surrounding hamburger production.