Fox hunting example

You discussed a claim about fox hunting: “It is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal. Fox hunting causes unnecessary suffering to the fox. It is therefore wrong to hunt foxes.”. Here’s one analysis of that argument:

1. The conclusion is: “It is therefore wrong to hunt foxes”.

2. The two premises are: (a) “It is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal”, and (b) “Fox hunting causes unnecessary suffering to the fox”.

3. The relationship between the two premises and the conclusions is conjoint. Both statements have to be correct for the conclusion to be supported. If it was OK to cause unnecessary suffering, or if it were untrue that fox hunting causes unnecessary suffering, then the conclusion would not be supported.

4. Do the premises support the conclusion? Let’s start by assuming the conclusion is meant to be absolute - all fox hunting is wrong. Let’s further assume the premises are intended to be absolute - it is always wrong to cause unnecessary suffering, and fox hunting always causes unnecessary suffering. If all three are absolute, then it’s a matter of logical deduction - the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. So, it the premises are true, the conclusion is also true. However, if any one of the three statements (two premises, one conclusion) are contextual (e.g. “fox hunting sometimes causes unnecessary suffering”) then it gets more complex. In many cases, it will be an inference rather than a deduction.

5. Are the premises true? The first premise is not really a scientific claim because it is prescriptive rather than descriptive, as covered in Lecture 1. The second premise is too vague to investigate, because of the term “unnecessary”. What defines whether an event is unnecessary? However, the related claim “fox hunting causes suffering” is a claim for which the evidence can potentially be examined scientifically — if one were satisfied that animal suffering is something that can be measured (which it probably is).