-
FALLACIES Fallacies are pseudoarguments.Although they look like
genuine arguments, their premises do not in fact support the
conclusion.The premises do, however, cause many to accept the
conclusion due to the presence of emotional appeals, factual
irrelevancies, and other persuasive devices.These cause many people
to accept or reject claims when there are no rational grounds for
doing so.Kinds of fallacies follow.
-
THE ARGUMENT FROM OUTRAGEThe fallacy lies in the assumption that
something is wrong because it makes us angry when, in fact, we
should be angry when something is wrong.This goes well with straw
man and false dilemma, to set up the outrage.The outrage way then
be illogically transferred to unrelated issues posed by those
persons or groups held responsible for the
outrage.Scapegoatingblaming a certain group of people or even an
individual for all or most of the ills in the world-is a
particularly dangerous version.
-
SCARE TACTICS IScare tactics =df. Saying something in connection
with a claim that causes or is meant to cause a psychological
response of some sort, such as a desire, fear, feeling, or emotion,
which is meant to lead the person to whom the tactic is directed to
accept the claim.Using scare tactics is pseudoreasoning since
neither what is said nor the psychological response elicited is a
reason for accepting the claim because neither is logically related
to the claim.
-
SCARE TACTICS IIFor instance, Jones says to her interviewer for
a job: I think that you will find that my resume makes me perfectly
qualified for the position I am applying for. And I think that my
uncle, who, incidentally, is on your board of directors, would
agree.A warning is different from a scare tactic.For instance, if
Bill says to Ted: Watch out for that patch of ice up ahead, you hit
that with your skis and you may break your neck.That may scare Ted,
but it is a warning not a scare tactic.Only when the scare is
irrelevant to the issue do we get pseudoreasoning.To avoid
pseudoreasoning, you need to recognize which issues are relevant
and which are not.
-
ARGUMENT FROM PITYArgument from pity =df. Trying to make someone
accept a claim through eliciting compassion or pity. Appeal to pity
is a form of pseudoreasoning since no reason is given for accepting
the claim. Rather than reason, appeal to pity concerns playing on a
persons emotions.Saying that Janes feelings will be hurt if she
fails the course is not a reason for passing her, but is an appeal
to pity.
-
ARGUMENT FROM ENVY
-
APPLE POLISHINGApple polishing =df. Compliments are used in
place of reasons to get a person to do something or to accept a
claim. The use of complimentary language is not in itself apple
polishing, but this form of pseudoreasoning occurs when nice words
are illegitimately used in connection with an issue to which they
are irrelevant.An example: John says to his boss: Sir I hope that
you will support my request for a promotion. You are the best boss
that I have ever had. (That Johns boss is a good boss is irrelevant
to Johns claim that he deserves a promotion.)
-
WISHFUL THINKING IWishful thinking =df. Believing that something
is true because you want it to be true, or, alternatively,
believing that something is false because you want it to be
false.For instance, thinking that the statement Humans survive
death is true because not surviving seems too terrible to us.Or
thinking that God does not exist is false because then we find life
meaningless and without moral foundation.However, because desires
do not themselves determine the truth values of statements to which
the desires pertain, and do not by themselves give us reason for
accepting or rejecting a claim, wishful thinking is a form of
pseudoreasoning.
-
WISHFUL THINKING IINot only do our concerns about a claims
wonderful (or awful) consequences not provide reasons for accepting
(or rejecting) it, but they also cannot make the claim the least
bit more or less likely.Perception of value does not determine
truth; thinking that something is good does not make it true, and
thinking that something is bad does not make it
false.Wishful-thinking pseudoreasoning underlies much of the empty
rhetoric of positive thinking rhetoric that claims you are what you
want to be and other such slogans.
-
PEER PRESSUREPeer pressure = df. Pseudoreasoning which says If I
dont do x or I dont accept claim y I will be rejected by my peers,
therefore I think that I should do x or accept y because I want the
acceptance of my peers.In peer pressure, a person does something
unreasonable or accepts an unreasonable claim because he or she
wants the approval of others, even though the approval of others is
irrelevant to the issue. For instance, a person gets in a car with
friends who have been drinking because she does not want to be left
out, or someone accepts the claim that smoking is not really a
health hazard, the government just wants us to think that because
that is what his peers who smoke say.
-
GROUP THINKPride of membership in a group is substituted for
reason and deliberation about an issue.Nationalism is an
example.
-
RATIONALIZINGThe use of false pretexts to justify actions or
beliefs that satisfy our own desires and interests.
-
ARGUMENT FROM POPULARITYA kind of pseudoreasoning which says
that a claim should be accepted because it is accepted by a number
of others. That is, a person thinks that x must be true because the
majority of people think that x is true.However, the majority can
be wrong.Therefore, a claims acceptance by others all by itself
does not generally warrant our accepting it.The mere fact that most
people believe a claim does not guarantee its truth.
-
COMMON PRACTICEA variant of the argument from popularity is
Common practice =df. Everyone does x, or most people do x,
therefore doing x is acceptable.For instance, It is okay for me not
to report all of my income since this is what everyone else does.
This is a form of pseudoreasoning since, even if it is true that
most people do x, it may still be wrong to do x.When someone
defends an action by saying that others do the same thing, this can
be a request for fair play. However, saying that people should be
treated equally is not the same as recognizing that, if an action
is wrong, it is wrong no matter how many people are doing it, and
no matter who gets away with it and who doesnt.Another variant is
the argument from tradition.
-
MAJORITY THOUGHTS Although appeal to popularity is a kind of
pseudoreasoning, what the majority of people think sometimes
actually determines what is true.For instance, it is true that most
people think that it is wrong to be boisterous and obscene in
public, and it is their thinking that way that determines the truth
of that assertion.There are other cases where what people think is
an indication of what is true, even if it cannot determine
truth.For instance, people might think that the weather in their
area makes it too dangerous for you to attempt to travel there on a
particular day.When the people who think that x is true include
experts on the subject, then that is a good reason to accept x.
-
RELATIVISM IRelativism =df. All truth is not absolute, but
relative. Hence statements are taken to be true relative to
individuals or groups for whom they are taken to be true. For
relativism, there is no truth apart from subjects. Individual
relativism is subjectivism.Historically, relativism goes back to
Protagoras (c. 490-c. 420 BCE) who said that man is the measure of
all things.Relativism can either be a general assertion about all
knowledge, or a particular assertion about views held within
certain subjects, such as ethics and aesthetics.
-
RELATIVISM IIRelativism is opposed to the view that there can be
objective truths the same for everyone, everywhere, everywhen, and
that there are absolute values independently of views the thinking
of groups and individuals. Examples of objective truths are that a
common, physical, external world exists independently of
perception, that 2+2=4, and that water is H2O. Examples of absolute
values are that it is wrong to deliberately harm an innocent
person, and that beauty is preferable to ugliness.
-
RELATIVISM IIIRelativism is often said to be self-contradictory
or self-stultifying (made by itself to appear foolish or
ridiculous). The statement There are no absolute truths, everything
is relative is itself the assertion of an absolute truth and so
contradicts itself. On the other hand, to assert that everything is
relative to a system of beliefs is itself relative to a system of
beliefs, a system of beliefs of which that assertion forms
part.Accordingly, by the very nature of the assertion itself, there
is no reason for anyone to accept it who does not share the beliefs
of the system of which the assertion forms part.Thus it is
self-stultifying, or becomes absurd, futile, or ineffectual on its
own principles.
-
RELATIVISM IVSimon Blackburn: Relativism is frequently rejected
on the grounds that it is essential to the idea of belief or
judgement that there are standards that it must meet, independently
of anyones propensity to accept it. Inability to make sense of such
standards eventually paralyzes all thought.The central problem of
relativism is one of giving it a coherent formulation, making the
doctrine more than the platitude that differently situated people
may judge differently, and less than the falsehood that
contradictory views may each be true.
-
RELATIVISM VMost claims, certainly those about straightforward
matters of fact (provided they are reasonably free of vagueness and
ambiguity) are simply true or false independent of any particular
persons acceptance of them.Those that accept the subjectivist
fallacy that truth is a subjective property of beliefs want to put
an end to argument.It can hide fear of losing an argument, or
represent intellectual indolence.Again, one must distinguish
between respect for persons and the value of their opinions, which
can and should be subjected to critical assessment.
-
THE SUBJECTIVIST FALLACYThe subjectivist fallacy =df. Thinking
that truth is not objective but is relative to particular
individuals. X is true (false) for me even if it is false (true)
for you or anyone else.What a subjectivist tacitly says is I think
or believe that x is true, therefore I take it to be true.The
problem is that truth is often independent of a particular persons
beliefs.Claims about factual matters are true if true regardless of
what a persons individual beliefs or preferences are.For instance,
water is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen independently of what
a person believes its chemical composition to be.To say that Its
true for me that water is helium and chloride is to commit the
subjectivist fallacy.
-
TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT ITwo wrongs make a right (two wrongs) =
df. A form of pseudoreasoning in which it is thought that one wrong
justifies another wrong, or when it is thought to be acceptable for
a person x to harm another person y because it is thought that y
would or might harm x.Two wrongs reasoning tries to justify
illegitimate retaliation. However, it is controversial whether
retaliation is ever justified.Retributivism =df. The view that it
is acceptable to do harm to someone in return for a similar harm he
or she has done to you, or that the punishment should fit the
crime.According to egalitarian retributivism, a society is
justified morally in punishing a criminal by doing to him what he
has done to the victim.For instance, society is justified on such
retributivist principles for putting a first degree murderer to
death.
-
TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT IIThe moral correctness of retributivism
is a legitimate point of discussion in ethics, and to assess its
correctness, arguments must be advanced for or against it.Two
wrongs and retributivism are different, since in the former the
retaliation is illegitimate and in the latter the retaliation is at
least supposed to be legitimate.Two wrongs is pseudoreasoning when
we consider a wrong to be justification for any retaliatory action,
or when the second wrong is misdirected.
-
TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT IIIExamples of two wrongs make a right
pseudoreasoning: John stole my girlfriend, therefore I have a right
to steal and burn his car.Person x is robbed and beaten by person
y, so x thinks it acceptable to beat and rob person z.Sara thinks
that she is justified in stealing Marys boyfriend because, If she
had the opportunity, she would have done the same thing to
me.However, It is not illogical or pseudoreasoning to defend As
doing X to B on the grounds that doing so is necessary to prevent B
from doing X to A.For instance, Tom is justified in hurting Bill
when it is clear that Bill intends to hurt Tom.This is simple
self-defense.
-
SMOKESCREEN/RED HERRINGSmokescreen/red herring =df. An
irrelevant topic or consideration introduced into a discussion to
divert attention from the original issue.For example, in a debate
about the wisdom of Star Wars a proponent argues that we must not
short-change the security of the United States.Piling on such
irrelevant diversionary issues produces a smoke screen. The point
of any smokescreen or red herring is to distract the reader or
listener from the issue at hand.Bringing in irrelevant topics is
not good argument, but is a kind of pseudoreasoning in which the
subject is changed and the discussion is thrown off course.