It cannot be considered a logically good answer, though, because it is:
Because there is no other way for us to interact with our environment? If we do not trust our senses, we would be too afraid to walk, open our eyes, eat/drink, etc...
This is a generally good answer indeed (at least according to me) and it is similar in form to the one Hume gives (we have to live in this world) - although there have been many philosophical attempts to answer "Hum's Problem of Induction" since then.
- Appeal to consequences - We must trust our senses because not doing so leads to undesirable consequences (fear of walking, fear of opening eyes, fear of eating/drinking, not interacting with environment)
- Begging the question - One must assume the conclusion (our senses are trustworthy) is true to determine the premise is valid (that there exists an environment to interact with; that we can walk, open our eyes, eat/drink)
Neither of these rebuttals actually deals with my response (nor Humes for that matter). First, I don't even know what not
trusting my senses (generally speaking) would even look like. So as far as that is concerned I really have no choice but
to trust them generally speaking. So it has nothing to do with an appeal to consequences. But second, even if it did that wouldn't necessarily make it any less valid. Similar to the often touted Appeal to Authority
fallacy, there are
in fact exceptions to that card being played - and this in fact may be one of them. Besides that, the statement wasn't an argument, or anywhere near it. So you are attacking a Strawman. Now THAT is a fallacy.