FALLACIES

Fallacies are pseudoarguments.

Although they look like genuine arguments, their
premises do not in fact support the conclusion.
The premises do, however, cause many to accept the
conclusion due to the presence of emotional appeals,
factual irrelevancies, and other persuasive devices.
These cause many people to accept or reject claims
when there are no rational grounds for doing so.

Kinds of fallacies follow.

THE ARGUMENT FROM

OUTRAGE
The fallacy lies in the assumption that something is
wrong because it makes us angry when, in fact, we
should be angry when something is wrong.
This goes well with straw man and false dilemma, to set
up the outrage.
The outrage way then be illogically transferred to
unrelated issues posed by those persons or groups held
responsible for the outrage.
Scapegoatingblaming a certain group of people or even
an individual for all or most of the ills in the world-is a
particularly dangerous version.

SCARE TACTICS I
Scare tactics =df. Saying something in connection
with a claim that causes or is meant to cause a
psychological response of some sort, such as a
desire, fear, feeling, or emotion, which is meant to
lead the person to whom the tactic is directed to
accept the claim.
Using scare tactics is pseudoreasoning since
neither what is said nor the psychological
response elicited is a reason for accepting the
claim because neither is logically related to the
claim.

SCARE TACTICS II
For instance, Jones says to her interviewer for a job: I
think that you will find that my resume makes me perfectly
qualified for the position I am applying for. And I think
that my uncle, who, incidentally, is on your board of
directors, would agree.
A warning is different from a scare tactic.
For instance, if Bill says to Ted: Watch out for that patch of ice up
ahead, you hit that with your skis and you may break your neck.
That may scare Ted, but it is a warning not a scare tactic.

Only when the scare is irrelevant to the issue do we get

pseudoreasoning.
To avoid pseudoreasoning, you need to recognize which
issues are relevant and which are not.

ARGUMENT FROM PITY

Argument from pity =df. Trying to make
someone accept a claim through eliciting
compassion or pity.
Appeal to pity is a form of pseudoreasoning since
no reason is given for accepting the claim. Rather
than reason, appeal to pity concerns playing on a
persons emotions.
Saying that Janes feelings will be hurt if she fails
the course is not a reason for passing her, but is an
appeal to pity.

ARGUMENT FROM ENVY

APPLE POLISHING
Apple polishing =df. Compliments are used in place
of reasons to get a person to do something or to accept
a claim.
The use of complimentary language is not in itself
apple polishing, but this form of pseudoreasoning
occurs when nice words are illegitimately used in
connection with an issue to which they are irrelevant.
An example: John says to his boss: Sir I hope that
you will support my request for a promotion. You are
the best boss that I have ever had. (That Johns boss
is a good boss is irrelevant to Johns claim that he
deserves a promotion.)

WISHFUL THINKING I
Wishful thinking =df. Believing that something is
true because you want it to be true, or, alternatively,
believing that something is false because you want it
to be false.
For instance, thinking that the statement Humans survive
death is true because not surviving seems too terrible to us.
Or thinking that God does not exist is false because then we
find life meaningless and without moral foundation.

However, because desires do not themselves

determine the truth values of statements to which the
desires pertain, and do not by themselves give us
reason for accepting or rejecting a claim, wishful
thinking is a form of pseudoreasoning.

WISHFUL THINKING II
Not only do our concerns about a claims wonderful
(or awful) consequences not provide reasons for
accepting (or rejecting) it, but they also cannot make
the claim the least bit more or less likely.
Perception of value does not determine truth; thinking
that something is good does not make it true, and
thinking that something is bad does not make it false.
Wishful-thinking pseudoreasoning underlies much of
the empty rhetoric of positive thinking rhetoric that
claims you are what you want to be and other such
slogans.

PEER PRESSURE
Peer pressure = df. Pseudoreasoning which says If I
dont do x or I dont accept claim y I will be rejected
by my peers, therefore I think that I should do x or
accept y because I want the acceptance of my peers.
In peer pressure, a person does something
unreasonable or accepts an unreasonable claim because
he or she wants the approval of others, even though the
approval of others is irrelevant to the issue.
For instance, a person gets in a car with friends who
have been drinking because she does not want to be
left out, or someone accepts the claim that smoking is
not really a health hazard, the government just wants
us to think that because that is what his peers who
smoke say.

GROUP THINK
Pride of membership in a group is
substituted for reason and deliberation
about an issue.
Nationalism is an example.

RATIONALIZING
The use of false pretexts to justify actions or
beliefs that satisfy our own desires and
interests.

ARGUMENT FROM
POPULARITY
A kind of pseudoreasoning which says that a claim
should be accepted because it is accepted by a
number of others. That is, a person thinks that x
must be true because the majority of people think
that x is true.
However, the majority can be wrong.
Therefore, a claims acceptance by others all by itself
does not generally warrant our accepting it.
The mere fact that most people believe a claim does not
guarantee its truth.

COMMON PRACTICE
A variant of the argument from popularity is
Common practice =df. Everyone does x, or most
people do x, therefore doing x is acceptable.
For instance, It is okay for me not to report all of my income
since this is what everyone else does.

This is a form of pseudoreasoning since, even if it is

true that most people do x, it may still be wrong to do
x.
When someone defends an action by saying that others do the
same thing, this can be a request for fair play.
However, saying that people should be treated equally is not the
same as recognizing that, if an action is wrong, it is wrong no
matter how many people are doing it, and no matter who gets
away with it and who doesnt.

Another variant is the argument from tradition.

MAJORITY THOUGHTS
Although appeal to popularity is a kind of
pseudoreasoning, what the majority of people think
sometimes actually determines what is true.
For instance, it is true that most people think that it is wrong to be
boisterous and obscene in public, and it is their thinking that way
that determines the truth of that assertion.

There are other cases where what people think is an

indication of what is true, even if it cannot determine truth.
For instance, people might think that the weather in their area
makes it too dangerous for you to attempt to travel there on a
particular day.

When the people who think that x is true include experts

on the subject, then that is a good reason to accept x.

RELATIVISM I
Relativism =df. All truth is not absolute, but
relative. Hence statements are taken to be true relative
to individuals or groups for whom they are taken to be
true.
For relativism, there is no truth apart from subjects.
Individual relativism is subjectivism.
Historically, relativism goes back to Protagoras (c.
490-c. 420 BCE) who said that man is the measure of
all things.
Relativism can either be a general assertion about all
knowledge, or a particular assertion about views held
within certain subjects, such as ethics and aesthetics.

RELATIVISM II
Relativism is opposed to the view that there can be
objective truths the same for everyone, everywhere,
everywhen, and that there are absolute values
independently of views the thinking of groups and
individuals.
Examples of objective truths are that a common,
physical, external world exists independently of
perception, that 2+2=4, and that water is H2O.
Examples of absolute values are that it is wrong to
deliberately harm an innocent person, and that beauty
is preferable to ugliness.

RELATIVISM III
Relativism is often said to be self-contradictory or selfstultifying (made by itself to appear foolish or
ridiculous).
The statement There are no absolute truths, everything
is relative is itself the assertion of an absolute truth and
so contradicts itself.
On the other hand, to assert that everything is relative
to a system of beliefs is itself relative to a system of
beliefs, a system of beliefs of which that assertion forms
part.
Accordingly, by the very nature of the assertion itself, there is
no reason for anyone to accept it who does not share the beliefs
of the system of which the assertion forms part.
Thus it is self-stultifying, or becomes absurd, futile, or
ineffectual on its own principles.

RELATIVISM IV
Simon Blackburn: Relativism is frequently
rejected on the grounds that it is essential to the
idea of belief or judgement that there are standards
that it must meet, independently of anyones
propensity to accept it. Inability to make sense of
such standards eventually paralyzes all thought.
The central problem of relativism is one of giving
it a coherent formulation, making the doctrine
more than the platitude that differently situated
people may judge differently, and less than the
falsehood that contradictory views may each be
true.

RELATIVISM V
Most claims, certainly those about straightforward
matters of fact (provided they are reasonably free of
vagueness and ambiguity) are simply true or false
independent of any particular persons acceptance of
them.
Those that accept the subjectivist fallacy that truth is
a subjective property of beliefs want to put an end to
argument.
It can hide fear of losing an argument, or represent
intellectual indolence.

Again, one must distinguish between respect for

persons and the value of their opinions, which can
and should be subjected to critical assessment.

THE SUBJECTIVIST FALLACY

The subjectivist fallacy =df. Thinking that truth is not
objective but is relative to particular individuals. X is true
(false) for me even if it is false (true) for you or anyone
else.
What a subjectivist tacitly says is I think or believe that x is
true, therefore I take it to be true.
The problem is that truth is often independent of a particular
persons beliefs.
Claims about factual matters are true if true regardless of what a
persons individual beliefs or preferences are.

For instance, water is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen

independently of what a person believes its chemical
composition to be.
To say that Its true for me that water is helium and chloride is
to commit the subjectivist fallacy.

TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT I

Two wrongs make a right (two wrongs) = df. A form of
pseudoreasoning in which it is thought that one wrong justifies
another wrong, or when it is thought to be acceptable for a
person x to harm another person y because it is thought that y
would or might harm x.
Two wrongs reasoning tries to justify illegitimate retaliation.
However, it is controversial whether retaliation is ever justified.
Retributivism =df. The view that it is acceptable to do harm to
someone in return for a similar harm he or she has done to you,
or that the punishment should fit the crime.
According to egalitarian retributivism, a society is justified
morally in punishing a criminal by doing to him what he has
done to the victim.
For instance, society is justified on such retributivist principles for
putting a first degree murderer to death.

TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT II

The moral correctness of retributivism is a
legitimate point of discussion in ethics, and to
assess its correctness, arguments must be
advanced for or against it.
Two wrongs and retributivism are different, since
in the former the retaliation is illegitimate and in
the latter the retaliation is at least supposed to be
legitimate.
Two wrongs is pseudoreasoning when we
consider a wrong to be justification for any
retaliatory action, or when the second wrong is
misdirected.

TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT III

Examples of two wrongs make a right
pseudoreasoning:
John stole my girlfriend, therefore I have a right to steal and
burn his car.
Person x is robbed and beaten by person y, so x thinks it
acceptable to beat and rob person z.
Sara thinks that she is justified in stealing Marys boyfriend
because, If she had the opportunity, she would have done
the same thing to me.

However, It is not illogical or pseudoreasoning to

defend As doing X to B on the grounds that doing so
is necessary to prevent B from doing X to A.
For instance, Tom is justified in hurting Bill when it is clear
that Bill intends to hurt Tom.
This is simple self-defense.

SMOKESCREEN/RED HERRING
Smokescreen/red herring =df. An irrelevant topic or
consideration introduced into a discussion to divert
attention from the original issue.
For example, in a debate about the wisdom of Star Wars a
proponent argues that we must not short-change the security of
the United States.
Piling on such irrelevant diversionary issues produces a smoke
screen.

The point of any smokescreen or red herring is to distract

the reader or listener from the issue at hand.
Bringing in irrelevant topics is not good argument, but is a
kind of pseudoreasoning in which the subject is changed
and the discussion is thrown off course.