Question

So you’re arguing that it is wrong for me to hunt deer? Well you eat hamburgers four times a week and that means cows are being killed so you can eat. it’s so obvious that there is no moral difference between killing cows and deer see your argument is deeply flawed. Is this a formal or informal fallacy?

Answer 1

In my opinion, this is an informal fallacy. Following are the reasons to support my answer:

• There is inconsistency in the argument. The two statements  If cows can be killed, which is not particularly considered morally incorrect; killing the deers can solve the moral conflict of the two situations.
• Moreover, the argument could be more structured, if the hunting of the deers would be justified for selling "Musk." Since that is missing, the argument lacks a proper analogy to articulate its logical thought process.
• The argument is faulty on the lines that cows are killed for a purpose, which is to sell a product called Ham. However, deers are hunted for leisure. It is not specified if their killing can be justified with a reason other than leisure to provide a strong enough argument. Thus, the refutal is not valid enough. Thus, there is an appeal to ignore the leisure aspect of the defending side.
• Ad hominem is used where the individual attacks the personal eating habits of the opposite party.
• There is a lack of logical reasoning.