Fallacies in Ethical Discussions Flashcards
What is a fallacy?
- An incorrect/misleading notion/opinion based on inaccurate facts/invalid reasoning
- Unsound/invalid reasoning
- The tendency to mislead
- (in logic) An error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid
Who wrote the first book on fallacies?
Aristotle
What is a(n) ad hominem/personal attack/discreditation?
Attacking a point of view by attacking the person defending of that point of view
Criteria:
-There is a direct or indirect reference to the arguers defects or doubtful qualities
-There is a shift of topic involved (the discussion was not about the arguer’s defects in the first
place)
- Usually, the speaker will try to mask the direct attack
Examples
After Sally presents a case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience
whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn’t married, was once arrested, and
smells a bit weird.
Well yes, he’s arguing that money does not bring happiness but have you seen his newest car?
What is a(n) Ad baculum/appeal to force/fallacy of the stick?
Discouraging an opponent from participating to the discussion by threatening
Criteria
-There is a direct or indirect threat
-The person threatening need not be the person carrying out the threat
- Usually very subtle formulation of the threat, but in principle “If you don’t back out, bad
things will happen”
Examples
We can of course discuss whether you deserve a raise, but I hope you realize that there are
many people waiting to take your spot.
I’m afraid those who reject evolution theory will be forced to labor at the periphery of cutting edge research.
What is a slippery slope/non sequitur (‘it does not follow’)?
Defending the undesirability of an action based on exaggerated bad consequence
of that action
Criteria
- Exaggerated & undesirable consequences
- The discussant creates a scenario in which a series of unlikely events are given as more or less certain consequences
- The discussants have not agreed upon the probability of those consequences
Examples: First, when the State sanctions homosexual relationships and gives them its blessing, the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and quickly loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity, the role of children in a family, and from a spiritual perspective, the “sanctity”of marriage.
What is a straw man?
Misrepresenting the other party’s argumentative moves (claims, arguments, questions etc.)
Criteria
- There is some repeating/quoting involved
- There are at least two identifiable versions of the move that is being represented
- The version created (straw man) is in some way easier to attack (exaggeration or simplification)
Examples
After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by
saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenseless
by cutting military spending.
[To a Darwinist:] Well personally I do not believe as others do that we’re all just a bunch of monkeys.
What is a(n) appeal to authority/ad verecundiam/appeal/to tradition, name dropping/appeal to * authority/appeal to mass opinion/ad ignorantiam
Defending the acceptability of a claim by appealing to an irrelevant
authority
Criteria
- An authority/institution is cited as supporting the claim under discussion
- The authority cited is from a different domain than the domain relevant to the topic at hand
Examples:
Recent studies have linked the sweetener Aspartame to cancers in laboratory animals. Given the prevalence of Aspartame in diet drinks, it should be removed from the market.
You know what they say: “Never change a winning team!”
What is begging the question/petitio principii/fallacy of many questions/complex question/circular reasoning?
Discussing as if a certain claim that is at issue is in fact acceptable to the other party.
Criteria
- Using the claim at issue as an argument (whereas in fact it should be the conclusion
- The authority cited is from a different domain than the domain relevant to the topic at hand
Examples
The Bible is the word of God, therefore God exists.
One should always question everything!
A heavier-than-air craft could never fly because in order to lift up and travel over distance a
machine would have to be lighter than the environs surrounding it.
What is a(n) hasty generalization/False analogy/Illicit generalization/Fallacy of insufficient sample/Leaping to a conclusion/Blanket statement/Hasty induction/Unrepresentative sample/secundum quid (‘overlooking qualification’)?
Jumping unjustifiably from sub-set to the superset (generalization), from one set to another
Criteria
- There are obvious (or agreed-upon) differences between the sub-set and the whole set
- The differences are relevant to deciding the question at hand
Examples (generalization)
My father smoked four packs of cigarettes a day since age fourteen and lived until age sixty-nine. Therefore, smoking really can’t be that bad for you.
(analogy) How can you support determinism and still do not believe in God? If the universe is like a watch, it must have, like all watches, a watchmaker!
What is an appeal to emotion/argumentum ad passiones/ad misericordiam?
Aiming to win the discussion by bringing in sensitive/delicate subjects into the discussion so as to have the other party give up their standpoint
Criteria
-The discussant can be held responsible for bringing into the discussion
delicate subjects or sensitive issues
-The discussion can be carried out without reference to those issues
Examples
Power lines cause cancer. I met a little boy with cancer who lived just 20 miles from a power line who looked into my eyes and said, in his weak voice, “Please do
whatever you can so that other kids won’t have to go through what I am going through.” I urge you to vote for this bill to tear down all power lines and replace them with monkeys on treadmills.
If we don’t switch to alternative forms of energy our children will die a horrible
death.
What is a false dilemma/Fallacy of excluded middle/false exclusion/false dichotomy?
Arguing based on a distinction A/non-A that ignores the possibility of B, C,
D, E etc.
Criteria
- There are two objects/courses of action presented as the only possible ones
- There is a third object/courses of action possible
- It is in the discussant’s advantage to ignore the third one
Examples
You are either with God or against him. (How about not believing in God?)
I thought you were a Democrat, but to be honest, now that I know you didn’t vote for Obama…
What is two wrongs don’t make a right/Two wrongs make a right fallacy/tu quoque (“you too”)?
Counteracting critique by showing that the same critique applies to other situations
Criteria
- Speaker 1 is being criticized of action A and replies by noting that Speaker 2 (or someone else) carried out similar action B
Examples
[Parent argues the point that smoking is bad] But you’ve been smoking all your life!
[USSR responds to USA’s accusation of human rights violation]: And you are lynching negroes
What is evading the burden of proof/avoiding the burden of proof/switching the burden of proof/immunizing a standpoint?
Refusing to discharge a burden of proof (i.e., duty to defend) and throwing it on the other speaker
Criteria
- It should be obvious (or agreed-upon) who has the burden of proof
- The attempt to switch should be explicit and fairly direct (a proposal to switch the burden of proof is not really fallacious)
Examples [In a discussion on evolutionary biology] Evolution is not a matter of opinion, it’s a fact. A: Putin should be president B: Why is that? A: You tell me why not!
