Archives for April 9, 2022

Description:

The Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief is a broad fallacy that has the following patterns:

 

Form 1

Premise 1: If people did not accept X as true, there would be negative consequences.

Conclusion:  X is true.

 

Form 2

Premise 1: If people did not accept X as false, there would be negative consequences.

Conclusion:  X is false.

 

Form 3

Premise 1: Accepting that X is true has positive consequences.

Conclusion:  X is true.

 

Form 4

Premise 1: Accepting that X is false has positive consequences.

Conclusion:  X is false.

 

Wishful Thinking Version 1

Premise 1: I wish that X were true.

Conclusion:  X is true.

 

Wishful Thinking Version 2

Premise 1: I wish that X were false.

Conclusion:  X is false.

 

This sort of reasoning is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. To illustrate, if someone were to say, “If purple unicorns don’t exist, then I will be miserable, so they must exist, we would not expect purple unicorns to start appearing.

It must be noted that the consequences are those that stem from the belief. It is important to distinguish between a rational reason to believe (evidence) and a prudential reason to believe (motivation). A rational reason to believe is evidence that objectively and logically supports the claim. A prudential (or pragmatic) reason to believe is a reason to accept the claim because of some external factor like fear, a threat, or a benefit or harm that may stem from the belief that is relevant to what a person values but not to the truth of the claim. For example, some people claim that if people did not believe in God, then that would be the death of morality and society would fall into chaos. Even if it is assumed that this is true, it does not prove that God exists. But it could provide a pragmatic (even a moral) reason to try to get people to believe in God.

The nature of the fallacy is especially clear in the case of Wishful Thinking. Obviously, merely wishing that something is true does not make it true. This fallacy differs from the Appeal to Belief fallacy in that the Appeal to Belief involves taking a claim that most people believe that X is true to be evidence for X being true. Wishful Thinking is not that most people believe it, but that it is true because someone really wants or hopes it is true. Alternatively, that it is false because someone really wants or hopes it is false.

This is not a rejection of the idea that a positive or hopeful attitude can be beneficial or that a negative or despairing outlook can be harmful. To use an obvious example, an athlete who is positive will tend to do better than a comparable athlete who is sunk into despair. But this is not due to wishful thinking, rather it is a matter of sports psychology.

 

Defense: The main defense against this fallacy is to keep in mind the difference between evidence for a claim and a practical or pragmatic reason to accept a claim (or get others to accept it). Wishful Thinking, which is usually self-inflicted, is especially difficult to guard against. People most often engage in Wishful Thinking when they are in distress or need and there can be strong emotions driving the fallacious reasoning. But the defense is to ask yourself whether you have evidence for your belief or if you just want it to be true. If other people engage in Wishful Thinking, there can be moral reasons to allow them to do so without criticism. For example, if someone is telling themselves that their loved ones are alright during a natural disaster because they could not bear it if anything happened to them, that would not be the time to give the person a logic lesson. But we should be on guard against our own Wishful Thinking and that of others when decisions are being made. For example, financial decisions should be protected from Wishful Thinking.

 

Example #1:

God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and the world would be a horrible place!

 

Example #2:

It can never happen to me. If I believed it could, I could never sleep soundly at night.

 

Example #3:

I don’t think that there will be a nuclear war. If I believed that, I wouldn’t be able to get up in the morning. I mean, how depressing.

 

Example #4:

I acknowledge that I have no argument for the existence of God. However, I have a great desire for God to exist and for there to be an afterlife. Therefore, I accept that God exists.

 

Example #5:

Ann: “Wow, you bought a brand-new electric SUV! I mean it is great, but weren’t you just saying that your job barely pays you enough to get by? And our rent is due soon. I’ve got my half…”

Julie: “Oh, it will work out. Don’t worry, I have a good feeling that things will be fine. Look, I bought a lottery ticket!”

Description:

The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

 

Premise 1: X is commonly done.

Conclusion: Therefore, X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.

 

The idea behind the fallacy is that the claim that many people do X is used as “evidence” to support an action or practice. It is a fallacy because just because most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

The Appeal to Common Practice is like and often confused with the Appeal to Belief. The main difference is that the Appeal to Common Practice appeals to what people most people do and Appeal to Belief appeals to what most people think. Belief and action can, and often do, overlap so a person could combine the fallacies in making both fallacious appeals at the same time.

The fallacy seems to gain its psychological force from the tendency to believe that what is commonly done is acceptable to do. People do, of course, take their social cues from observing what others do. Another psychological factor that might be at play is that people might think that they should be allowed to do something if other people are also doing it. In some cases, this can be a non-fallacious appeal to fair play.

An appeal to fair play, which can look like an Appeal to Common Practice, need not be a fallacy. For example, a woman working in an office might say “the men who do the same job and who have the same qualifications get paid more than I do, so it would be right for me to get paid the same.” This would not be a fallacy if there was no relevant difference between her and the men (in terms of ability, experience, hours worked, etc.). An appeal to fair play has this form:

 

Premise 1: It is common practice to treat people of type Y in manner X and to treat people of type Z differently.

Premise 2: There is no relevant difference between people of type Y and type Z.

Conclusion: Therefore, people of type Z should be treated in manner X, too.

 

This argument depends on the principle of relevant difference. On this principle two people, A and B, can be justly treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them. For example, it would be right for me to assign a better grade to Sally than Dave if Sally wrote a better paper than Dave. However, it would be wrong of me to assign a better grade to Sally simply because Sally has red hair and Dave has blonde hair.

Moving away from logic and into ethics, there are moral theories in which majority acceptance of X as moral entails that X is moral. The usual example of this is moral relativism: morality is relative to the practices of a culture, which can be taken as what is common practice in that culture. If what is moral is determined by what is commonly practiced, then this argument would not be a fallacy:

 

Premise 1: Most people in culture C do X.

Premise 2: Moral relativism is true.

Conclusion: Therefore, X is morally correct.

 

This sort of relativism has some interesting consequences. For example, imagine that there are only 100 people in a culture. 60 of them do not steal or cheat and 40 do. At this time, stealing and cheating would be wrong. The next day, a natural disaster kills 30 of the 60 people who do not cheat or steal. Now it is morally correct to cheat and steal. Thus, it would be possible to change the correct morality to one’s view simply by eliminating those who disagree. There are also other types of philosophical relativism, such as relativism about beauty.

 

Defense: The defense against this fallacy is to determine if the justification for an action or practice consists only in the claim that it is commonly done. To avoid mistaking a request for fair play with this fallacy, be sure to check to see whether that is what is occurring. If it would be reasonable to get more philosophical, you should also consider whether the argument is being made within the context of a relativistic theory, such as ethical relativism.

 

Example #1:

Director Jones oversees running a state waste management program. When it is found that the program is rife with corruption, Jones says “This program has its problems, but nothing goes on in this program that doesn’t go on in all state programs.”

 

Example #2:

“Yeah, I know some people say that cheating on tests is wrong. But we all know that everyone does it, so it’s okay.”

 

Example #3:

“Sure, some people buy into that equality crap. However, we know that everyone pays women less than men. It’s okay, too. Since everyone does it, it can’t really be wrong.”

 

Example #4:

“There is nothing wrong with requiring multicultural classes, even at the expense of core subjects. After all, all universities and colleges are pushing multiculturalism.”

 

Example #5:

“Of course, our company opposes toxic masculinity, supports diversity and is going green. This is what all the enlightened companies are doing these days. And as the kids say, ‘get woke or go broke.’ Wait, did I say that last thing out loud?”

Description:

Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:

 

Premise 1: Most people believe claim X is true.

Conclusion: Therefore, X is true.

 

The Appeal to Belief fallacy derives its influence from psychological rather than logical force. People are often inclined to accept a claim is true when they think most people believe it. The usual illustration of this is that at one time most people in Europe believed that the earth was the center of the solar system. However, this belief turned out to be false.

This reasoning is fallacious because the fact that most people believe a claim does not, by itself, serve as evidence that a claim is true. There are, however, two general exceptions.

There are some cases when belief in a claim can indicate it is true. For example, suppose that when visiting Maine, you are told by several Mainers that anyone over 16 who wants to fish needs to buy a fishing license. Barring reasons to doubt them, it would be reasonable to accept their claim. In such cases, the reasoning is a good Argument from Authority rather than an Appeal to Belief.

There are also cases in which belief makes a claim true. For example, the truth of claims about manners seems to depend on what people believe to be good manners. The truths of language, such as what words mean, also seem to be a matter of majority belief. Another example is the case of community standards, which is often defined in term of what most of the community believes. As an illustration, obscenity might be defined in terms of community standards. In this case, the claim “x is obscene” will be true if most people in that community believe x is obscene. In such cases it is still prudent to question the justification of the individual beliefs.

This fallacy is sometimes modified slightly to better match its intended target. In these cases, the appeal is made to the (alleged) beliefs of people the target looks at favorably. For example, a teacher’s union might say that most teachers believe that a bill should be supported to influence teachers. This approach can improve the persuasive force of the fallacy but does not impact its logical force.

 

Example #1

Ted: “Did you do your taxes yet?”

Ken: “Yeah. Got a tiny rebate.”

Ted: “That is because you were honest. You should cheat on your taxes.”
Ken: “That seems wrong. Also, illegal. I mean, for people like us.”

Ted: “Nah, most people think it is okay to lie a bit to the IRS. So it is okay.”

 

Example #2:

God must exist. After all, I just saw a poll that says 85% of all Americans believe in God.

 

Example #3:

Of course, there is nothing wrong with drinking. Ask anyone, he’ll tell you that he thinks drinking is just fine.

 

Example#4:

Edward: “What do you think about that new bill?”

Willamina: “The one that lets parents decide what books will be allowed for use in public education?”

Edward: “Yup, that one. You know that most teachers like you think it is a bad idea and oppose it.”

Willamina: “Well, I was not sure until now. But if my fellow teachers think it is a bad bill, I agree with them.”