Last Week's Q&A

Last week's Q&A: I have been meaning to make another post about it but keeping forgetting. I do not understand how morals cannot be mentioned in any of the premises yet is in the conclusion. The two premises--Humans are omnivorous by nature and Omnivores can eat meat have nothing to do with the conclusion--Therefore, it is morally permissible for humans to eat meat. There is nowhere in the premise that mentions and even hits are morality. There should be an ought premise that deals with morality to make this argument valid.

How could there be an ought premise that discusses morals and connects it to meat? Honestly, I have no idea. All I know, is the morals and meat should be the "glue" to fills the gap in this argument. Assumptions cannot be made when making an argument. It needs to be perfectly clear to someone who is foreign to the topic of the argument to be able to understand it.