Grounding this line of reasoning then, let’s replace A with ‘men’ and B with ‘women’: the superiority of men over women justifies women’s domination by men. Does this follow? No. There is a missing premise that must logically imbue “domination” with moral substance: “Does one’s domination mean that she is morally better than you?” Is it an ethically acceptable premise? Certainly Not.

Arguing from a conclusion is a useful tool when reasonably judging the desirability of an ethic. As another example, let’s consider intellectual - determined arbitrarily as we tend to do - superiority: the intellectual superiority, as measured by one’s IQ, of Jane over Alice justifies Alice’s domination by Jane. This is the logical conclusion of accepting the premise that domination, however this concept is formulated, is ethically significant.

Finally, then, let’s define A and B again, in another manner reflective of our current ideology: the superiority of human animals over nonhuman animals justifies [the] nonhuman animals’ domination by human animals. Ought we accept this logic? Unless we can define a principle that separates the latter example from the former one’s articulated above, we should not.

Crossposted @ That Vegan Girl