Fallacies in Ethical

Discussions
 Plan for today

1. Fallacies
2. The study of fallacies: origins and development
3. Method for identifying fallacies
4. Examples (for groupwork)
What is a fallacy?
Origins
 The study of fallacies: core ideas

• Cheating is tempting (with or without intention)

• ‘Bad’ ways of arguing come with a bad character (sophists)
• There’s a distinction between good belief (knowledge, epistèmè) vs bad
belief (false opinion, doxai)
• Infinite ways of being fair, but finite ways of being unfair  we can
categorize them and studythem
 The study of fallacies: development

• 1st book on fallacies: Aristotle’s Sophistical refutations

[absolutely nothing for many centuries]
• new fallacies (‘ad’ fallacies): F. Bacon, J. Locke, J. Bentham, J.S. Mill
[textbook phase]
• 1st college textbook on fallacies: I. Copi’s Introduction to logic (1953)

 The STF (Standard Treatment of Fallacies):

“A fallacy is an argument that looks argument but it’s not”
 The study of fallacies: development
• 1st systematic (very critical) study of fallacies: Charles Hamblin’s
Fallacies (1970)
• many problems with all the lists that were proposed
• starting with the definition: most examples of fallacies were not
arguments, were not formal/mathematical arguments (so no
question of validity) and nobody was doing psychological
examinations
• [many approaches developed]
• 1st handbook study: van Eemeren et al. (1996/2014) Handbook of
argumentation theory
• interesting spin-off: Popa (2015) Criticism without fundamental
principles
Identifying fallacies
 Definition

1. Text
THEORY

4. Check
2. Context
criteria

3. DATA
Categorize
 Definition

• A fallacy is an unreasonable form of argumentative behavior

• Unreasonable = the discussant aims win the discussion unfairly, deceptively, by evading
critical responses from the other discussant(s)
• Argumentative behavior = any kind of linguistic behavior exhibited by the participants to an
argumentative discussion, i.e., a discussion directed at solving a difference of opinion
• This is the pragma-dialectical definition
• Notice:
• A fallacy does not depend on its ‘success’ (you can try to cheat and fail by getting caught,
it’s still an attempt to cheat)
• Fallacies are not just bad arguments - it can be a question, a command or even just a word
• Fallacies are not about reasoning, but behavior - we don’t know what goes on in people’s
minds
 1. Text

• Start with an intuitive critical reading of the text

• Don’t think about theory and lists and definitions yet (you’ll do that later)
• Extract the pieces:
• that sound a bit shady
• that seem to deserve some extra comment or discussion
• seem like an ‘easy win’ for the arguer
• Make sure you focus as much as possible
• Don’t highlight a whole paragraph  Where is the issue exactly?
• Don’t try to justify your decisions yet (You’ll do that later. Go with the flow)
 2. Context

• Answer the following questions regarding the context of the text you just read:
• Is there a difference of opinion at hand? What is it about? (What is ‘at issue’? What is ’at
stake’?)
• Who are the discussants?
• What are the institutional conventions surrounding this discussion?
• [Add here other questions that might help you to place the text in context]
• • Go back to the text if necessary!!
 3.
Categorize

• You will be working with a list of types of fallacies (well known/frequent)

• Select the type(s!) of fallacy that best suite the text under consideration
 4. Check
criteria

• You will be working with a list of criteria for each fallacy

• Think of these as boxes you can tick
• The more boxes you tick on one type of fallacy, the more certain it is that it falls under that
category
• When in doubt:
• Go back and re-do the steps
• Consult other’s evaluations
• What would the reasonable version be? What have you changed in constructing the reasonable
version?
• It can sometimes be more than one fallacy (although there is typically one predominant, relative to
the ’illocutionary point’ of the discussion move)
 Try your hand at these

• “It made me so drowsy to read his response in last week’s edition that I will
not even take the trouble to reply to his musings. The man is weak in the
head, and blessed are the innocent of spirit.”
• “How can you have given me such a low grade for our presentation? We’ve
worked on it night and day!”
• “If it rains, the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore it rained”
 Try your hand at these

• “It made me so drowsy to read his response in last week’s edition that I will
not even take the trouble to reply to his musings. The man is weak in the
head, and blessed are the innocent of spirit.”
• “How can you have given me such a low grade for our presentation? We’ve
worked on it night and day!”

• “If it rains, the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore it rained”
 Ad hominem
Labels personal attack, discreditation
Definition 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?

’That’s where you’re wrong, kiddo!’

 Ad baculum

Labels fallacy of the stick, appeal to force

Definition 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 there
are many people are 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.
 Slippery slope

Labels non sequitur (‘it does not follow’)

Definition Defending the undesirability of an action based on exagerrated bad consequence of
that action
Criteria - Exagerrated & 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.
 Straw man

Labels -
Definition 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 defenceless 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.
 Appeal to authority

Labels ad verecundiam, appeal to tradition, name dropping, appeal to * authority, appeal to

mass opinion, ad ignorantiam (“nobody knows => false”)
Definition 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 scientific 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!”

 Begging the question

Labels petitio principii, fallacy of many questions, complex question, circular reasoning
Definition 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.
 Hasty generalization/False analogy
Labels Illicit generalization, Fallacy of insufficient sample, Leaping to a conclusion,
Blanket statement, Hasty induction, Unrepresentative sample, secundum quid
(‘overlooking qualification’)
Definition Jumping unjustifiably :
- one sub-set to the whole set
- 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!
 Appeal to emotion
(fear, pity, etc.)
Labels argumentum ad passiones, ad misericordiam, etc.
Definition 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.
 False dilemma
Labels Fallacy of excluded middle, false exclusion, false dichotomy
Definition 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…
 Two wrongs don’t make a right
Labels Two wrongs make a right fallacy, tu quoque (“you too”)
Definition 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
 Evading the burden of proof
Labels avoiding the burden of proof, switching the burden of proof, immunizing a
standpoint
Definition 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!
 Evading the burden of proof
Labels avoiding the burden of proof, switching the burden of proof, immunizing a
standpoint
Definition 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!
 The study of fallacies: some quirks

• Very many approaches and textbooks (internet)

• Very many names of fallacies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
• ”Alphabet Soup” (?!?)
• “Ad Hitlerium” (?!?)
• Recycled standard examples of fallacies:
“Have you stopped beating your wife?” (begging the question)
 !!! REMEMBER THIS !!!
1. A fallacy closes the discussion, identifying fallacies should open it.
è A fallacy accusation is not definitive. It is an invitation to go back and re-open
a discussion that someone tried to close
 !!! VERY IMPORTANT !!!
5. There is only one way of getting better at this!