Common Fallacies in Ethics and Moral Reasoning

erroneous transference

Committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the ________ of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole.

unlikely alternatives

Committed when a disjunctive " (either…or…) "premise presents two ________ as if they were the only ones available, and the arguer then eliminates the undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion.

ambiguous statement

Occurs when the arguer misinterprets a(n) ________ and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation.

analogy

Note: an argument from ________ is an argument in which the conclusion depends on the existence of a(n) ________, or similarity, between the two things or situations.

false premises

A defect in an argument that consists in something other than ________ alone.

defective pattern

It is a(n) ________ of arguing, a mistake in reasoning.

reasonable likelihood

Occurs when there is a(n) ________ that the sample is not representative of the group.

bad argument

It is the creation of an illusion that makes a(n) ________ appear good.

Note

an argument from analogy is an argument in which the conclusion depends on the existence of an analogy, or similarity, between the two things or situations

Note

The requirement of true premises includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion

FALLACY

A defect in an argument that consists in something other than false premises alone

TYPES OF INFORMAL FALLACIES

- Fallacies of Relevance
- Fallacies of Weak Induction
- Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity, Grammatical Analogy

Argumentum ad baculum (Appeal to force)

Occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to them if they do not accept the conclusion

Argumentum ad hominem (Argument against the person)

Responding by directing attention not to the argument but to them person themselves

Argumentum ad misericordiam (Appeal to pity)

Occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely evoking pity from the reader or listener

Argumentum ad populum (Appeal to the people)

Using people's tendencies (such was wanting to be loved, esteemed, recognized, and accepted by others) to get the reader or listener to accept the conclusion

Straw man

Committed when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent's real argument has been demolished

Ignoratio elenchi (Missing the point)

Occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn

Red herring (Distraction)

Committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometime subtly related one

Argumentum ad verecundiam (Appeal to unqualified authority)

Occurs when the cited authority or witness lacks credibility

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (Appeal to ignorance)

When the premise of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing

Converse accident (Hasty Generalization)

Occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group. Such a likelihood may arise if the sample is either too small or not randomly selected.

False cause

Occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist

Slippery slope

Occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place

Weak analogy

Committed when the analogy Is not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn

Petitio principii (Request for source)

Is committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possible false key premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle

False dichotomy

Committed when a disjunctive premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available, and the arguer then eliminates the undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion

Complex question

Committed when two (or more) questions are asked in the guise of a single question, and a single answer is then given to both of them

Suppressed evidence

Committed when an inductive argument does indeed ignore evidence

Equivocation (Changing meanings)

Occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument

Amphiboly

Occurs when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation

Composition

Committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something onto the whole

Division

When the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (or a class) onto its parts (or members)