You didn't give the options. However, i'll try.
To me, a stone cannot be ethical because it cannot suffer. Indeed, the capacity for suffering must be satisfied before we talk about interest in a meaningful way. For instance, nothing we could possibly do for a stone could make a difference in its welfare. It don't have interest. Whereas, we, humans have interest. Therefore we can be ethical because we are sentient beings that can be benifited or harmed. It's because we can experience pain as a result.
Hope this helps !
Photon
Answer:
fragment
Explanation:
no subject, just verb. For it to be a <em>c</em><em>o</em><em>m</em><em>p</em><em>l</em><em>e</em><em>t</em><em>e</em> sentence, it would need a subject to accomodate the verb.
Complete sentence:
<u>H</u><u>e</u> <u>c</u><u>o</u><u>m</u><u>m</u><u>a</u><u>n</u><u>d</u><u>e</u><u>d</u> the continental army in the revolutionary war.
Macbeth is a heroic soldier and an honorable man.
This can fit into the category of Hasty Generalization, this is, that you generalize with a lack of evidence or better,reasons as of to state that the trilogy of the Lord of The Rings isgood. It is good because it is good, if the first part is good, then all the trilogy is good.
Another option might be a fallacy called <em>ad populum </em> which takes place whenever you appeal to the public knowledge of something to prove it is true. In this case forexample, you could say: the reviews are giving this movie 5 stars, so this movie is good, because people like it.
