fallacies in ethics
Fallacy: mistaken belief, based on unsound argument
Logical fallacies: can send ethical reasoning off track
Ad hoc realization: inventing factors that explain away evidence or arguments that counter our views, beliefs, or claims.
Ad hominem or ad feminam: discredit a claim by drawing attention to the characteristics of the person who is making the claim, even if the two are unrelated
Affirming the consequent: if not x, then y. y therefore: x. example: people who are psychotic act in a bizarre manner. This person acts bizarre. Therefore, this person is psychotic.
Appeal to ignorance (ad ignorantium): there is no evidence establishing X is false, so X is true.
Argument to logic (Argumentum ad logicam): assuming a claim must be false because an argument offered in support of the claim was fallacious.
Begging the question: arguments that assume or re state their own truth rather than providing relevant evidence and logical arguments
Composition fallacy: assuming a group possesses the characteristics of its individual members
Denying the antecedent: if x, then y. not x, then not y.
Disjunctive fallacy: either x or y. x, so not y.
Division fallacy or decomposition fallacy: assuming that members of a group possess the characteristics of the group
Existential fallacy: 2 universal premises and draws a specific conclusion from them. 2 premises may be true, but that does not logically establish the existence of any members in the categories they represent.
False analogy: argument by analogy in which the comparison is misleading in at least one important aspect
False continuum: absence of a clear, definitive marker separating a continuum into two mutually exclusive groups is used to falsely prove that there is no difference between the two extremes on the continuum
False dilemma: either/ore fallacy. Only two options, one of which extreme, from a continuum or other array of possibilities
False equivalence: two items share a characteristics or are linked by some similarity demonstrates they are equivalent
Genetic fallacy: t/f is deduced or inferred from propositions origin
Golden mean fallacy: assuming that the most valid conclusion is that which accepts the best compromise between two competing positions
Ignoratio elenchi: assuming an argument proves a particular point when it in fact misses the point of the issue
Mistaking deductive validity for truth: assuming b/c an argument is a logical syllogism, conclusion must be true. Ignores possibility that premises of argument may be false
Naturalistic fallacy: logically deducing values based on only statements of fact
Nominal fallacy: mistake of assuming b/c we have given a name to something, we have explained it
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore on account of this): confusing correlation with causation
Red herring: introducing or focusing on irrelevant information to mislead audience by distracting them from the valid evidence and reasoning. Intent to mislead.
Slippery slope: a must cause b, and b can have no other outcome than c, and c is sufficient cause for e, and d must lead to e, and e must produce f, and so on, because the last link in the supposedly causal chain is undesirable, therefore the first step is undesirable.
Straw person: mischaracterizing someone elses position in a way that makes it weaker, false, ridiculous
You too: distracting attention from error/weakness by claiming that an opposing argument, person, or position has the same error or weakness
Ad Hoc Rationalization: Inventing explanations on the spot to dismiss counter-evidence or arguments.
Ad Hominem: Discrediting a claim by attacking the person making it, not the claim itself.
Ad Feminam: A form of ad hominem that attacks the person based on their gender.
Affirming the Consequent: Assuming that if the consequent (result) is true, then the antecedent (cause) must also be true.
Appeal to Ignorance (Ad Ignorantiam): Arguing that something is true because it hasn't been proven false, or vice versa.
Argument to Logic (Argumentum Ad Logicam): Assuming a claim is false because an argument supporting it is fallacious.
Begging the Question (Petitio Principii): Using an argument that assumes its own truth instead of providing valid evidence.
Composition Fallacy: Assuming a group has the characteristics of its members.
Denying the Antecedent: Incorrectly arguing that if the antecedent is false, then the consequent is false.
Disjunctive Fallacy: In a statement of “either x or y”, arguing that if x is true then y is not true.
Division Fallacy: Assuming members of a group have the characteristics of the group as a whole.
Existential Fallacy: Deriving a specific conclusion from universal premises that do not imply the existence of any members in those categories.
False Analogy: Making a comparison that is misleading or flawed in some significant way.
False Continuum: Using the lack of a clear dividing line to argue that no difference exists between two extremes.
False Dilemma: Presenting only two options when more options exist.
False Equivalence: Claiming that two items are equivalent based on shared characteristics.
Genetic Fallacy: Judging a claim based on its origin rather than its content.
Golden Mean Fallacy: Assuming the best conclusion is the compromise between two opposing positions.
Ignoratio Elenchi: An argument that misses the point and proves a different issue.
Mistaking Deductive Validity for Truth: Assuming a conclusion is true because it is deductively valid.
Naturalistic Fallacy: Deriving value statements from factual statements.
Nominal Fallacy: Thinking a name explains something.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc: Assuming a causal relationship between two events simply because one follows the other.
Red Herring: Introducing irrelevant information to distract from the main issue.
Slippery Slope: Arguing that an initial step will inevitably lead to a series of negative consequences without adequate evidence.
Straw Person: Misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack.
You Too! (Tu Quoque): Dismissing an argument by claiming the opponent has the same fault.