This issue with this reasoning is it’s after the fact and not on the merits itself.
If someone were to think killing animals for amusement is good or moral (even though you don’t) and they pointed to animals that do it as justification, that wouldn’t sit well with you.
That’s the bit we’re trying to get at. It’s more that you’ve already decided something (in this case eating meat is morally fine or a good reason to kill animals) and you’re fitting the environment to your case afterwards.
This doesn’t work because in places where you think something is immoral (killing animals for amusement) the same justification fails.
You’ve already made up your mind, the justification feels like a flawed rationalization.
If someone were to think killing animals for amusement is good or moral (even though you don’t) and they pointed to animals that do it as justification, that wouldn’t sit well with you.
That’s the bit we’re trying to get at. It’s more that you’ve already decided something (in this case eating meat is morally fine or a good reason to kill animals) and you’re fitting the environment to your case afterwards.
This doesn’t work because in places where you think something is immoral (killing animals for amusement) the same justification fails.
You’ve already made up your mind, the justification feels like a flawed rationalization.