Fallacies in Ethical Reasoning

What is a logical fallacy?

Fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of a person’s argument. They can make an argument illegitimate, irrelevant, weaken an argument, and make bad arguments appear good.

The Argument from Ignorance

A fallacy in which a conclusion is supported by an illegitimate appeal to ignorance, as when it is supposed that something is likely to be true because we cannot prove that it is false. EX: There is no proof that aliens exist therefore aliens must not exist, and vice versa.

The appeal to innappropriate authority

A fallacy in which the appeal to authority is illegitimate because the authority appealed to has no special claim to expertise on the matter in question. EX: When famous athletes endorse products that have nothing to do with their area of competence, their testimonials carry no logical weight. Trump retweets game show host Chuck Woolery who claimed everyone is lying about COVID.

Ad Hominem Abusive

A fallacy in which an attack is made on the character of an opponent rather than on the merits of the opponent’s position. Assumes that who a person is determines the correctness or incorrectness of what a person says. EX: Don’t trust their opinion, she’s old.

Ad Hominem Circumstantial

A fallacy in which an attack is made on the special circumstances of an opponent rather than on the merits of the opponent’s position. EX: “You must agree with Trump’s tax cut proposals: after all you are a Republican.”

Appeal to Pity

Occurs when the arguer attempts to get the conclusion accepted by evoking pity from the listener or reader. EX: “but professor if i don’t get an A in this class I’ll lose my scholarship”

Appeal to Force

Occurs when the arguer, instead of providing genuine evidence for a conclusion, provides some sort of threat or harm to the listener or reader if the conclusion is not accepted. EX: “Students should lavish their philosophy professors with expensive gifts. Imagine what kind of grades they would get if they didn’t”

Irrelevant Conclusion

A fallacy committed when the premises of an argument purporting to establish one conclusion are actually directed toward some other conclusion. Ex: “Every parent in this city wants better schools or their children. My new tax proposal will raise enough money to build 10 new schools and completely staff them with the most qualified teachers available. I need your support for this new proposal.”

Complex Question

A fallacy in which a question is asked in such a way as to presuppose the truth of some conclusion buried in the question. Ex: Have you stopped taking illegal drugs?

False Cause

A fallacy in which the mistake arises from accepting as the cause of something that which is not really the cause. Ex: “of course you’re a perfectionist. You’re a pisces.”

Begging the Question - Circular Reasoning

This occurs when the conclusion of an argument is already present, usually disguised in one of its premises. Ex: “You can’t expect 18 yr olds to vote intelligently because they are too young to have good judgment about the issues.” or “We can’t hire you, you have no experience”

Accident

A fallacy in which a generalization is applied to individual cases that it does not govern. Ex: “Speeding is illegal so you shouldn’t do it even if you’re taking a critically ill child to the emergency room.”

Hasty Generalization

The stereotyping fallacy. Occurs when a conclusion is drawn about all the members of a group or population from a sample of the group that is not representative of the group as a whole. Ex: The mother and father don’t work. The whole extended family is lazy.”

Equivocation

A fallacy in which 2 or more meanings of the same word or phrase have been confused. Ex: Honda is the top car in America today. Tops are children’s toys. Therefore, Hondas are children’s toys. OR I’m not bald, I’m just follically challenged.

Slippery Slope

Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the claim that a certain event or situation will initiate a chain of events leading to some undesirable consequence, and when there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain of events will actually take place. Ex: if trump gets elected in november, democracy in this country will be destroyed.

False Dichotomy/False Dilemma

This occurs when an arguer presents a pair of conditions as the only possibilities when they are not mutually exclusive. A dichotomy is an either/or type statement. Ex: You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.

True Dichotomy

Either you are pregnant or you are not. Can only be either/or, cannot be both.

Red Herring

This occurs when an arguer introduces an irrelevant or unimportant topic in order to divert attention from the main question. Ex: “Why did you get an F on your test"… “Mom, have I ever told you how beautiful you are?”

Tu Quoque (You too)

Appeal to hypocrisy. Distracts from the argument by pointing out the hypocrisy of the opponent. Ex: “You can’t tell me not to do drugs. You’re a drug addict”.

Straw Man (Person)

This occurs when an arguer inappropriately simplifies an opposing argument so that it becomes a cartoon or caricature of the true argument and is easy to refute. Ex: “Gun advocates want to allow criminals and children to own weapons, so we should work towards a gun ban.”

Naturalistic Fallacy (Is —> Ought)

This occurs when an arguer justifies a position based on how things are and claims that this is how they ought to be. Deriving an “ought” from an “is”. Ex: Tigers and dogs eat meat, so vegetarians must be wrong.

Wishful Thinking (Ought —> is)

This occurs when an arguer justifies a position based on how they want them to be, regardless of evidence, and claim that this is the way that things are. Ex: “I know that I am the greatest professor of all time, so I must be”.