Common Fallacies in Ethics and Moral Reasoning

^^FALLACY^^

  • In Latin, "non sequitur", meaning “not following”
    • The conclusion does not follow from the premises
  • A defect in an argument that consists in something other than false premises alone
  • It is a defective pattern of arguing, a mistake in reasoning
    • It is the creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument appear good

%%TYPES OF INFORMAL FALLACIES%%

  • Fallacies of Relevance
    • Include premises that are irrelevant to the conclusion being drawn
  • Fallacies of Weak Induction
    •  Includes weak reasoning
  • Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity, Grammatical Analogy
    • Presumption
    • The conclusion assumes something not found in the premises; it does not follow the premises
    • Ambiguity
    • Includes lack of clarity
    • Grammatical Analogy
    • Rules of grammar that make the argumentation poor 

__Fallacies of Relevance__

  • 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
    • Attack on the personality, on the character of the person, and not to the argument in question
  • 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)
    • Bandwagon mentality
    • 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
    • Often finishes by either drawing a conclusion about this different issue or by merely presuming that some conclusion has been established

__Fallacies of Weak Induction__

  • Argumentum ad verecundiam (Appeal to unqualified authority)
    • Occurs when the cited authority or witness lacks credibility
    • Lack of the requisite expertise → might be biased or prejudiced, might have a motive to lie or disseminate "misinformation", or might lack the requisite ability to perceive or recall
  • 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
    • The issue usually involves something that is incapable of being proved or something that has not yet been proved
    • The converse is also possible
  • 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.
    • Specific case (not representative) -- Generalization --> General Rule
    • Where a specific case, which is not really a good representative of the group, is made the basis for a generalization of the whole group
  • 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
    • 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
__Fallacies of Presumption, Ambiguity, Grammatical Analogy__
  • ==Presumption==
    • Petitio principii (Request for source)
    • The actual source of support for the conclusion is not apparent
    • 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
    • Basically, in trying to argue for something, you assume something
      • Hence, it begs the question, instead of answering it
    • False Dichotomy
    • Committed when a disjunctive ("either…or…") 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
      • Question has to broken down before given a conclusion, which makes the argument a lot more complex and difficult to examine
    • Suppressed Evidence
    • Committed when an inductive argument does indeed ignore evidence
      • 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
  • ==Ambiguity==
    • 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
  • ==Grammatical Analogy==
    • 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)