Category: Fallacies

Word of the week: w/c 24/11/14: False Dichotomy

23/11/2014

A fallacy in which only two limited alternatives are considered. whereas in reality there are other options available.

This term is part of a series of “word of the week” posts that focus on fallacies; logical errors in an argument. A false dichotomy is when someone makes a case and presents two opposing views, options or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only possibilities. If one is true, the other must be false or, if you do not accept the one then the other must be accepted. The reality in most cases is that there are many in-between and alternative options not just two mutually exclusive ones.

One famous example of this was George W Bush when he declared in September 2001 that “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists":

To many this would be seen as an oversimplification of the situation; you could after all be an absolute pacifist who is not willing to take up arms against any one on ethical grounds and so you are with neither and against neither. You might be in favour of diplomatic negation with terrorists etc.

The false dichotomy remains a popular fallacy to utilise because it sounds dramatic and presents listeners with a stark choice (especially if accompanied with a reduction ad absurdum) that will only really offer one way forward. As philosophers and ethicists we need to be alert to its usage!

One area that I have seen it used a lot recently is when debating the difficult issue of Euthanasia with my GCSE group. I have found false dichotomies being used by both the pro-choice and pro-life sides of the argument:

“You either have Euthanasia, which allows people to die pain-free and with dignity, or you have no Euthanasia and everyone suffers intolerably and with a total loss of dignity” (Pro-Choice)

“If you allow Euthanasia then everyone will be killed as soon as they become terminally ill or over 70 years old – all valuing of life will be lost. Whereas, without a Euthanasia law the terminally ill are cherished and valued by society – which would you rather have?” (Pro-life)

Both of these arguments are flawed in that they offer a false dichotomy – the first ignores the fantastic work that palliative care can do, the second overstates (performs a reductio) what might happen if Euthanasia was legalised.

So, See if you can spot a false dichotomy this week!

w/c 15.09.14 - Irrelevant Appeals

14/9/2014

Irrelevant appeals are attempts to sway the listener with information that, though persuasive, is irrelevant to the argument.

A few weeks ago the word of the week was Fallacy – and I promised that we would examine some specific versions of fallacies. If you need reminding (which I am sure you don’t) a fallacy is a logical mistake in an argument. This week we think about a whole range of them which appeal to an authority that is not logically trustworthy – but often people think that it is.

Appeal to Tradition

The first of these is to claim that something is right because it has a long tradition– within ethics this might be, for example, arguing that humans have been eating animals for the whole of human history and so it would be silly to stop doing it now. Or, to take a pertinent political example, some are arguing that Scotland should stay part of Great Britain because the Union has been in place for over 250 years; how can you just throw away all that history?

This kind of argument has a natural appeal because people often look back to the past through rose tinted spectacles. Many like to imagine that things were somehow better, more honourable and more decent in the past. Things with long traditions are given great kudos and seen as intrinsically valuable. Whilst it may be true that some things do fall into this category, it is certainly not the case that all things do. Take for example the tradition of slavery, subjugation of women or homophobia. Not many would seriously make the argument that these things are good because they have a long history within human societies! Just because something his a long tradition does not make it good per se.

Appeal to Popularity

Another irrelevant appeal is the appeal to popularity – this is saying that something is right because the majority of the population agree with it – “it can’t be wrong if that many people think it is right”! One example could be someone, when debating Euthanasia, making the case that it should be legalised because most people say they would like the option of ending their own life when they want. This does not make the argument valid all it does is make the argument popular!

Take the example of Racism; the majority of people who lived in Britain at the turn of the 20th Century did not believe that members of other races should be afforded the same rights as white people – there was a great deal of what we would now call racism. Does that mean that racism was permissible then? Most people would not be happy with this argument and prefer to argue that racism is intrinsically wrong; wrong in and of itself.

http://stuartsorensen.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/appeal-to-popularity.jpg

Appeal to religious authority

Finally we might consider another form of irrelevant appeal; appeal to religious authority. This is when someone argues that an ethical principle or value judgement is right purely on the basis that it is contained somewhere in a religious text or oral tradition. I am not saying that all religious arguments are fallacious – only when they rest solely on the basis of religious authority.

A very simple example would be that of stealing; is it good enough to say it is wrong just because it is one of the Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not Steal”? Surely factors such as the inability to universalise the action make it immoral (Kant’s view) or the consequences of stealing have to be considered when deciding if it is immoral (Utilitarianism)?

In reality the reason why moral laws such as not stealing have made it into most religious codes is because the logical arguments for them are very good and so they have been adopted by religious communities.

Lazy arguments

What all irrelevant appeals have in common is that they are lazy arguments – they do not require much thought or effort on the part of those who make them. They come effortlessly from society, or tradition or religion and can be trotted out too easily. Do not be lazy yourself and not challenge them!!

Do you want to challenge anything I have said in this post?

w/c 11.8.14 - Fallacy

11/8/2014

1. A misleading, deceptive or false notion.

2. An argument that uses poor reasoning.

Over the course of the year there will be a number of types of fallacies presented as “word of the week” such as Straw Man, Ad Hominem and Tu Quoque. For now it is enough to outline what this word means in general.

In common usage the term can mean any idea which is false or misleading such as “That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy”.

In Philosophy and Ethics we are more interested in the second use of the term; an argument that uses poor reasoning. Last week the word of the week was Syllogism (see here). Sometimes Syllogisms that look good prove to be false; these are known as deductive fallacies.

1. All pigs have snouts.
2. That creature has a snout.
C. Therefore that creature is a pig.

This looks like a good syllogism at first glance - but it is in fact fallacious.

“That creature” may well be a pig, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In fact it could be a shrew, aardvark, or even a crocodile. The problem is that statement 1 has been reversed; in this case “all pigs have snouts” is being read as “all snouted animals are pigs”. It is a common misconception that the only snouted animals are pigs, and so at first glance the syllogism works. But when you think about it more carefully you see that it is an example a deductive fallacy; individually the steps appear logical, but when placed together is actually incorrect

Word of the week: w/c 24/11/14: False Dichotomy

A fallacy in which only two limited alternatives are considered. whereas in reality there are other options available.

w/c 15.09.14 - Irrelevant Appeals

w/c 11.8.14 - Fallacy

Archives

Categories