I misread the question.

I can provide an example, but you might hate me for it. I swear this is just to explain what I mean by this fallacy because I can't think of another example right now.

Justifying killing/using an animal for its skin/hide (e.g. leather or fur), because you're already killing the animal for its flesh, when in actual fact the killing of the animal doesn't need to take place at all (hypothetically).

Or justifying the killing of calves for veal as a necessary component of dairy production, when in fact dairy production isn't necessary, either.

I hope that makes sense

So, the plants found a way to hijack the bees' journey by putting some extra pollen on them to take to other flowers, since they're already there taking pollen anyway? That's awesome.

By playing beatbox music and making everyone stay away from me while I grew corn and ate it slowly in front of them while they watched me cautiously from a distance.

You're right technically... but i should have said "fictional story" and "plays multiple characters"

Actually almost all male calves do (in the dairy industry), because they can't produce milk and it wouldn't be profitable or financially feasible to keep them alive otherwise

"Male dairy calves are surplus to the requirement of dairy production, and thus, are often sold from the dairy farm in early life. In the United States, male calves are generally sold within days of birth (Shivley et al., 2019) for veal or dairy beef production (Perdue and Hamer, 2017). Raising young male dairy calves for meat, particularly veal, is a contentious issue that has received public scrutiny in the United States (e.g., California Prop 2, 2008) and globally (reviewed by Bolton and von Keyserlingk, 2021)."

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fanim.2022.1000897/full

Ok I have another example.

Another example might involve arguing that the disposal of hazardous waste is necessary because it's a byproduct of a particular manufacturing process, while ignoring the question of whether that manufacturing process itself is essential or necessary. This fallacy occurs when one justifies an undesirable or harmful element as a necessary component of a larger practice or system without questioning the necessity of the entire system or practice.

Most what? Calves or male calves? Because it's factually incorrect to say that most male calves aren't killed for veal. They evidently are.

But let's ignore that for a second. The fact that any calves in the dairy industry are killed for veal, or even for beef (at only a few years older, still a fraction of their natural lifespan), is of course a harm, whether you agree with it or not. Killing an animal is harming them, no matter if they're a baby animal or a few-year-old animal.

It's a harm toward animals that some might justify as a necessary component of dairy production, which it is. But this ignores the fact that dairy production itself isn't necessary. And that was the crux of the fallacy I'm alluding to.

One I can think of is false dilemma/false dichotomy (a false premise that erroneously limits what options are available, and forces us to choose between 2 options (either cause unnecessary harm and waste the full usefulness of the harm, or cause unnecessary harm and maximise its usefulness) when there is a third option to not cause the unnecessary harm in the first place.

However that's more general and I was looking for something more specific that refers to assuming something is necessary because it's an unavoidable component of another thing which itself is unnecessary.

USDA is inherently biased toward animal farming, and the first source I linked was a scientific study. But I'm not necessarily denying what USDA says. Holding a bias doesn't automatically make something untrue. You didn't quote anything they said, you made some hasty calculations based on their statistics, which seemed to overlook the distinction between male calves and female calves. You used this to make a statement that I never disagreed with, because I was making a different one. (One could call that a strawman fallacy).

Humane League is an animal welfare organisation. Of course they're going to focus on the most ethically unsound aspects of animal farming, since that's their purpose, but nothing they said was false. They did acknowledge that some male calves in the dairy industry are raised for beef, but that most are killed for veal.

That's pretty messed up. Of course it's cruel. Only a person who lacks empathy for animals would say that causing suffering to an animal unnecessarily isn't cruel.

Are you now trying to claim that animals don't have cognition despite the fact they're sentient and intelligent beings?

Just out of interest, what if we make it a (not-human) animal instead of a human? Or, what if we make it trillions of animals every year. What about a world that doesn't require it but still includes mass amounts of animal sacrifice unnecessarily? That's the world we're in right now 😂

It's absolutely necessary to kill cattle for meat in the dairy industry. It would not be financially viable otherwise, and small-scale farms that try to avoid this practice can't provide enough dairy to feed the human population if they're consuming dairy; and they still involve other unavoidable cruelties inherent in taking the milk designed for calves, separating them and selectively breeding cows to overproduce milk, docking and debudding them, etc etc.

By everyone, I mean nonhumans (nonhuman animals).

I appreciate your thoughts! And "nerd sniped" is a great term 😂 I agree, I think there may not be a specific name for this fallacy (though it could be described as somewhat of a false requirement or false necessity fallacy), nor is it widely recognised in logic literature (as is often the case; some might call it a "made-up fallacy" but indeed a verifiable one), but it probably falls under the more general fallacies of "false dilemma/false dichotomy", as well as "fallacy of composition":

"Fallacy of composition occurs when someone assumes that what's true for part of something must also be true for the whole or that if one thing is a necessary component of another thing, both must be necessary, even if it's not the case. In essence, it assumes that the properties of the parts apply to the whole."

Biologically they produce it for their calves, the intended recipient. Just like a human woman produces milk for their babies. All mammals do the same thing. The only difference is humans take the milk from cows when their calves need it, not just for nutrition but for the nurturing as they naturally gravitate to their mother's udders. Calves are separated from their mothers by humans to stop them doing that and steal the milk from another species. There's nothing normal or acceptable about it

What do you mean "it didn't work"? Of course I mean that if we as a society eliminated it, that would prevent all of the harms involved in it. That hasn't happened yet.

I said they need it for an intended purpose which is for nurturing as well as adequate nutrition. They also don't need to be alive, but they certainly want to be. It's pretty disgusting that you're defending this.

And yet, biologically, a cow makes milk for her calf, and the calf is healthiest and happiest when allowed to suckle their own mother's milk naturally. Just like a human doesn't produce milk intentionally, but they do allow their baby to have it, since that's what works best for them and helps to form a maternal bond and nurture the baby. All the same is true for cows.

You're focusing on one aspect of dairy farming when there are a number of ethically unsound practices such as stealing the babies from their mothers and killing them for beef, even if not veal. Or artificially inseminating mothers and forcefully impregnating them, selectively breeding them to overproduce milk which wrecks their bodies. And then killing them at the end of a life of extreme suffering, still at a relatively young age. It doesn't make a difference to the fact that they're cruel, and necessary parts of large scale dairy farming, which is unnecessary as a whole.

It's not cruel to cause (ultimately) unnecessary suffering to an animal? And that's your opinion, remember. Not a fact.

They don't wish to die. This is very clear in their behaviour. They actively seek to avoid being killed, even though there's no escape for them. Many animal psychologists and slaughterhouse workers can verify this. They show fear and cower, try to escape, or even try to knock bolt guns away. They can smell blood of the animals that were killed before them, and they often see their dead bodies too. They moan desperately at the top of their lungs. They are sentient and highly intelligent animals. They know they're about to die and they exhibit a clear desire to live.

Even ignoring this, it's obviously in their best interests for them to be alive and not have their life taken away from them at a young age, just like it is for them to be with their mother and live a happy, healthy life, without harmful interference and exploitation by humans.

A pregnancy which we force upon them, sexually violating them, yes. But that doesn't mean they don't care for their children. They want to nurture and protect them, and naturally develop a maternal bond. Biologically the milk is made for their calves to drink, and allowing them to, not stealing them away and killing them, is in the best interests of both parties involved (the cow and the calf).

It's not an arbitrary goal, because in order to provide dairy to everyone, these practices must happen (when we don't need to provide dairy to everyone). I guess I could clarify that rather than it being a necessary component of dairy production to kill calves and cattle, for example, it's a necessary component of dairy production on a scale to feed our planet, or even any significant human populations. For all intents and purposes as they apply to most people, and when considering the industry as a whole, these practices are necessary for dairy production, while dairy production itself isn't necessary.

On a mass scale to provide for everyone, it's necessary. However, for sake of example, just switch veal to beef. Or switch it to any of the other cruel practices inherent in dairy farming. The fallacy still applies if you defend one practice as a necessary component of a larger unnecessary practice

So causing a mother to cry for her missing baby isn't unethical? I'm not sure what ethical system you're referring to that would determine whether something is ethical. By all accounts, causing suffering to an animal is cruel when it's not needed.

Raping someone not to cause them suffering but to gain something out of it is (pleasure, or a baby) is unethical. Something unnecessary that causes suffering doesn't need to be done for the express purpose of causing a being suffering in order to be unethical.

A carnivore eating an animal and including their mammary glands in the flesh they're eating is very distinct from deliberately drinking their milk, either suckling on their teats or milking them. It's a very rare practice ("milking" another animal never happens in nature, as we do), but humans have made it a norm for our species. Human adults were lactose intolerant by default before the lactase persisten gene developed as an adaptation to tolerate drinking cow's milk made for calves. My point being it wasn't previously normal for humans either. It's an avoidable practice, so arguing that the processes involved in it are necessary is simply untrue and logically false.

Interesting, other responses here say it's the other way round, with morality being more societally-derived and ethics being either more personally interpreted, or more practical/logical in spite of culturally conventional moral ideas.

Part of why I asked this question is because I seem to see morality and ethics defined to mean the opposite of each other in different places, and this kind of proves that to be the case lol

It's really not. What we do, exploiting an animal directly for their milk, is not normal in the animal kingdom. You're trying to argue that it is because mammaries are part of the meat that some animals consume. That's a false equivalency.

No other species drinks the milk from another species regularly. It's definitely not true to say that any predator that preys on mammals will drink the milk of their prey. It happens in rare circumstances with certain species. The way we artificially inseminate dairy cows, steal their babies and kill them, and steal the milk made for them, in industrialised farming systems, is far removed from nature.

Normal is one thing, which I would dispute. Acceptable is based on your opinion, which I think is highly flawed and unethical. Causing suffering and harm to animals by separating them from their mothers and killing them is cruel. Therefore I wouldn't say it's morally acceptable at all given that the whole industry is unnecessary, and harmful in a number of ways.

How is it not a false dichotomy? It erroneously forces us to choose between 2 options, when in actual fact there is a third option.

And, I'm really not. I was asked for an example/elaboration of how the fallacy might be used, and that was my best example. However it can likely apply to other situations too. If you recall, I initially just asked for what the fallacy might be called, without specifying any examples until I was asked for one.

An action is cruel if it causes unnecessary suffering, period. The lack of an intention to cause suffering is irrelevant if the action does cause suffering and doesn't need to happen, and we are aware of the harm it does. Which we are. Continuing to engage in the practice is therefore willingly causing needless suffering, which is unethical.

I literally never said it was rape. I previously said it was a sexual violation, but I genuinely used the example of raping a human for a different reason, as an example of a practice that is unethical despite the fact it may not be intended to cause suffering (but does, and is unnecessary) If you can't cop that, that's your problem.

I think they can certainly apply to any situation where the logic is flawed, so arguing that something is necessary since it's part of another system which itself is unnecessary, is a logical fallacy

If we accept that something is a necessary component of an unnecessary system, but then use that fact to argue that the component is necessary in absolute terms, that's a logical fallacy given that it's not absolutely necessary if the system it's a part of isn't absolutely necessary

After researching I found it can be called a false necessity fallacy or false requirement fallacy

That's funny, notice I never said artificial insemination was rape. I guess that's something you assumed given that it is very comparable to rape, and is undoubtedly a sexual violation, regardless of its intention (which is ultimately unnecessary). And it's not a veterinary procedure, it's a farming practice with the end goal of producing a product to sell that the animal is exploited for.

I was using rape as an example of a practice that causes suffering and which is unethical despite the fact that causing suffering isn't the motivation for doing it (necessarily), in response to you trying to argue that something that causes suffering isn't unethical if suffering isn't the intention. If something causes unnecessary suffering, it's unethical, regardless of the intention.

Conserving resources within the dairy industry, such as consuming the surpluss calves and cattle that are killed, might make sense from an economic standpoint.

But the dairy industry itself isn't necessary. It matters because instead of supporting it by buying the veal and beef byproducts derived from it, we could simply boycott the whole industry entirely, which would eliminate all of the harms involved in it.

You seem to have made the exact fallacy that I'm describing in my post, as seen in the title.

Pretty much every ethical framework that exists would find that causing needless harm and suffering to animals is unethical. Kicking a dog when you don't need to is unethical. Similarly, stealing a baby from their mother, restricting them in a crate, and killing them, causing the mother extreme emotional anguish, is unethical; causing her pain from overproducing milk is unethical; given that dairy farming is itself unnecessary.

It's a large topic that you opened up when I never intended for that. And you made some pretty long comments with wide-reaching implications as well. It takes a lot to debunk these claims, or explain why they're specious in their reasoning and don't invalidate the overall point.