Archives for May 23, 2022

Also Known as: The Subjectivist Fallacy

Description:

The Relativist Fallacy is committed when a person (or group) rejects a claim by simply asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for them. This reasoning has the following form:

 

Premise 1: Claim C is presented.

Premise 2: Person (or group) A asserts that C might be true for others but is not true for them.

Conclusion:  Therefore, A is justified in rejecting C.

 

In this context, relativism is the view that truth is relative to R (a person, time, culture, place, etc.). This is not the view that claims will be true at different times of the year (“today is Halloween”) or about different people, but the view that a claim could be true for one person (or group) and false for another at the same time. To illustrate, believing that moral truths depend on one’s culture would be a form of relativism. Believing that different cultures profess different moral values would not be relativism.

Often, when people say, “X is true for me” what they really mean is “I believe X” or “X is true about me.” A claim is true about a person if the claim describes the person correctly. For example, “Bill has blue eyes” is true about Bill if Bill has blue eyes.

To make a claim such as “X is true for Bill” is to say that the claim is true for Bill and that it need not be true for others. For example: “1+1=23 is true for Bill” would mean that, for Bill, 1+1 does equal 23, not that he merely believes that 1+1=23. As another example, “the claim that the earth is flat is true for Bill” would mean that the earth really is flat for Bill, not just that he believes it. In that case, Bill would exist in a different reality.

These examples are intentionally silly to show that it should not be assumed that truth is relative to groups or individuals, although beliefs certainly are.

While it might be thought that this fallacy cannot be committed when truth is relative, this is not the case. The fallacy can still be committed provided that the relativity or subjectivity of truth is uncritically assumed in the reasoning.

Some things are uncontroversial in their relativity or subjectivity. For example, if Bill says that the room is too warm and Sally says it is too cold, they can both be right: it feels too warm for Sam and too cold for Sally. As another example, if Ted says that goat milk is delicious and Sandy says that it is yucky, they can both be right: Ted’s subjective experience of goat milk is pleasant while Sandy’s is not. But these are still cases were something is true about someone rather than being true for them.

The relativity or subjectivity of truth is a matter of significant philosophical debate and hence its truth or falsity cannot simply be assumed. For example, moral relativists argue that morality is relative to the culture and moral subjectivists contend that morality is relative to the individuals. But there are good arguments against these views. Aesthetics, the branch of philosophy dealing with arty and beauty, also sees debate over subjectivity and relativity. While it is often assumed that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, this subjective view of beauty should not simply be assumed as correct.

As a bad faith tactic, people sometimes pretend to be relativists or subjectivists and then use this fallacy to reject a claim. While the reasoning is the same fallacy, the bad faith element adds an element of deceit. For example, a person might reject a moral criticism of their actions in bad faith by asserting “who is to say what is wrong or right?”

 

Defense: The main defense against this fallacy is to determine if a reason has been given to accept that the matter at hand is a true case of relative or subjective truth. If not, then the fallacy has been committed if a claim is rejected by a mere appeal to relativism or subjectivism.

 

Example #1:

Jill: “Look at this, Bill. I read that people who do not get enough exercise tend to be unhealthy.”

Bill: “That may be true for you, but it is not true for me.”

 

Example #2:

Jill: “I think that so called argument you used to defend your position is terrible. After all, a fallacy hardly counts as an argument. “

Bill: “That may be true for you, but it is not true for me.”

 

Example #3:

Bill: “Your position results in a contradiction, so I can’t accept it.”

Dave: “Contradictions may be bad in your Eurocentric, oppressive, logical world view, but I don’t think they are bad. Therefore, my position is just fine.”

 

Example #4:

Sam: “So, you cheated on your wife and stole her credit card to pay for the hotel room. You also got your…I guess mistress…pregnant and made her get an abortion. But, as a legislator, you have been trying to ban abortion. You are a bad person doing bad things.”

Lex: “Who is to say what is good or bad?”

Sam: “Huh, she just texted me to say that your car appears to be on fire and that she is breaking up with you.”

Lex: “Why that evil little b…”

Sam: “Language. Also, who is to say what is good or bad? Oh, another text. It looks like the fire is out.”

Lex: “Good!”

Sam: “Well, it is out because the car is now in your pool.”

Lex: “Bad!”

Also Known As: Fallacy of Hypostatization

Description:

This fallacy occurs when an abstraction is assumed to be a real, concrete entity and a conclusion is drawn from this assumption. The fallacy has the following form:

 

Premise 1: Abstraction A is treated as if it were a real, concrete entity.

Premise 2:  Treating A as real is taken to entail C.

Conclusion: Therefore, C is true.

 

The mistake is to treat an abstraction as real entity without adequate justification and then using this to support a conclusion.

This fallacy commonly occurs when abstract entities such as nature, fate and political or social entities are treated as being real entities with intentions, desires, needs and motivations of their own. Attributing such human qualities to objects is sometimes called the Anthropomorphic Fallacy or the Pathetic Fallacy.

This fallacy also occurs when human institutions, such as states, are treated as real entities on par with (or being) natural (or supernatural) forces. This reification is often used to justify actions or policies for or against the institution. For example, the state might be reified to argue that it must be obeyed. This view is popular with some fascists. As another example, a person who pirates electronic media might reify companies to argue that their theft is not morally wrong.

In some cases, what counts as reification is a matter of serious philosophical debate. Thinkers have often argued for the reality of what others regard as purely abstract entities.  For example, philosophers such as Aristotle and Aquinas attributed purpose to natural forces and to dismiss their arguments without consideration would be an error.

As such, showing that this fallacy has been committed requires showing that the abstraction has been assumed to be a real entity without adequate support. If an argument for treating an abstraction in this manner has been provided, then this argument must be engaged rather than merely dismissing the reasoning as fallacious.

 

Defense: The main defense against this fallacy is to check to determine if any good reasons have been advanced to accept that the abstract entity as being real. If not, then the fallacy has been committed. Even if arguments do exist somewhere for the abstract entity being real, this fallacy can still be committed by a person who fails to support their view. For example, while there are many philosophical arguments aimed at showing that the natural world is purposeful, someone who simply reifies nature would be committing this fallacy.

 

Example #1

Rick: “Homosexuality only occurs in humans and only by choice. In nature, there are no homosexuals. This shows that nature is opposed to homosexuality and hates it. Therefore, homosexuality is morally wrong for what nature opposes is evil.”

Emile: “I’m pretty sure there are gay animals.”

Hugo: “Yes, years ago I saw a show about gay penguins. I mean, they all wear tuxes, and you know who wears tuxes, right?”

Emile: “Grooms?”

Hugo: “Right. And you know what grooms do?”

Emile: “Get married.”

Emile: “Spot on. Since all the penguins wear tuxes, that means they are all grooms. So, penguins are practicing gay marriage.”

Rick: “No, they are not! And if they were, they’d go to hell!”

Hugo: “Yup. And it would be extra bad for them. They are, after all, accustomed to the cold.”

Emile: “Those poor dead gay penguins…”

Rick: “Don’t pity them! They got what they deserved!”

 

Example #2

Kyle: “You know, I feel bad doing this experiment. I know they signed a release and all but zapping them with electric shocks doesn’t feel right.”

Gina: “I understand. This is hard on me, too. But the experiment requires that we go on and do what we must.”

Kyle: “Well, if the experiment requires me to do it, then I must. I get my $15 right?”

Gina: “Of course, the experiment always keeps its word.”

Kyle: “It better. Why are you having me shock people?”

Gina: “Oh, we’re doing an experiment on reification.”

Kyle: “Is that a fancy term for zapping people?”

Gina: “As far as you know.”

Kyle: “Zap!”

 

Example #3

“Why do you waste your energy trying to oppose the State? You otherwise seem to be a sensible man. You do not stick your head into a fire and try to resist its burning. You don’t run out in a storm and shake your fist at the tornado. You do not try to oppose gravity. Be sensible and do not resist the State. It only wants what is best for you, so even if you could someone resist, then you would only be hurting yourself. Be sensible.  Come back to the loving embrace of the State. Even now, the State will forgive you your sins.”

 

 

Example #4

Lulu: “I used to feel a bit bad about liberating software, music, videos and eBooks.”

Sasha: “You mean ‘pirate’, right?”

Lulu: “Such a harsh word. But anyway, I don’t feel bad at all about it now. After all, when I liberate…or pirate…stuff, I am not hurting individuals. I am just pirating from the corporation. It has plenty of money and does all kinds of bad things. So, it is fine for me to pirate from it.”

Sasha: “Well, would you steal a candy bar from the corner store?”

Lulu: “No way. That would be stealing from Mr. Whipple. That would be wrong.”

Sasha: “But stealing from a corporation is okay? What about the artists who create the work or the people who distribute it?”

Lulu: “Yeah, it is fine. I’m not hurting those people. I’m sticking it to the corporation.”

Description:

This fallacy occurs when it is inferred a claim is false or an argument is fallacious because the person making it is arguing in bad faith.  The form is as follows:

 

Premise 1:  Person A made claim C or Argument A in bad faith.

Conclusion: Therefore, claim C is false or Argument A is fallacious.

 

This is a fallacy because even if a person is arguing in bad faith, this does not entail that a specific claim is false or that a specific argument is fallacious.

This fallacy is tempting because arguing in bad faith, by definition, involves using deceit. This deceit can include intentionally making false claims and intentionally using fallacies.

But even in the context of arguing in bad faith, a person can make true claims and make non-fallacious arguments. While this might occur due to ignorance, it is more likely to be intentional. The person might be combing good faith arguments and claims with their bad faith arguments and claims as part of an overall bad faith strategy. After all, lies can seem more plausible when they are in the company of true claims and a good argument might be used to make the person seem reasonable. The person might even have some isolated instances of good faith claims and arguments, because they think those will serve their purpose better than bad faith claims and arguments. That this fallacy is bad reasoning can be shown with this silly example:

 

Ted: “To recap, by showing the clear inconsistencies in Senator Smith’s claims and his repeated use of various fallacies against his critics, it is reasonable to conclude that Smith has been arguing in bad faith.”

Alice: “Hmm, Smith also claimed that 2+2=4. So, he must be lying about that. I wonder what 2+2 really equals?”

 

A bad faith (and ironic) variant of this fallacy is the Accusation of Bad Faith. This fallacy involves intentionally and falsely accusing someone of arguing in bad faith to conclude that their claim is false, or their argument is fallacious

 

Premise 1:  Person A intentionally and falsely claims that Person B is arguing in bad faith when they make claim C or argument A.

Conclusion: Therefore, Person B’s claim C is false, or argument A is fallacious.

 

As a fallacy of reasoning, the logic is flawed because it uses the same logic as the Bad Faith fallacy. This fallacy can be psychological effective if the audience knows enough about bad faith to know that it involves the intentional making of false claims and fallacious arguments but are ignorant of the Bad Faith Fallacy. While sometimes used for trolling, it can also be combined with other fallacies. For example, it can be very effective in a Gish Gallop because accusing someone of arguing in bad faith takes a few words while trying to prove one is arguing in good faith and explaining the Bad Faith Fallacy can take a long time.

The Bad Faith Fallacy can look like a Fallacy Fallacy or an Ad Hominem. In part, this is because they are similar. People also tend to be sloppy or intentionally obscure when committing fallacies. In such unclear cases, the important thing is recognizing that a fallacy is occurring. Being able to precisely identify it can be useful, but is not essential.

 

Defense: The defense against this fallacy is to remember that just because a person is arguing in bad faith, this does not entail that a specific claim must be false or that a particular argument must be fallacious. While you should be suspicious of anyone who seems to be arguing in bad faith you should also not rush to an unwarranted inference about their claims or arguments.

If someone else is targeted by what you suspect is an Accusation of Bad Faith, you should assess the allegation. But even if it is true, there would still be a Bad Faith Fallacy occurring.

If you are targeted by an Accusation of Bad Faith, a time-consuming defense is to show that you are arguing in good faith and to explain the Bad Faith Fallacy. The burden of proof generally rests on the person who accuses someone else of arguing in bad faith, but someone who is operating in bad faith is unlikely to respect this.

 

Example #1

Brent: “And that is why abortion is morally wrong.”

Yolanda: “Meh, I have tried to engage in a serious discussion with you, but you keep on arguing in bad faith. I have lost count of your lies and every argument you advance is either a fallacy or incoherent. Your bad faith shows that your view about abortion is wrong.”

 

Example #2

Brent: “And that is why abortion is morally acceptable.”

Yolanda: “Meh, I have tried to engage in a serious discussion with you, but you keep on arguing in bad faith. I have lost count of your lies and every argument you advance is either a fallacy or incoherent. Your bad faith shows that your view about abortion is wrong.”

 

Example #3

“The governor’s speech was yet another example of bad faith. He says he is signing all these bills because he cares about children. But the state has a severe child poverty problem, infant mortality and illness are both high, and so on. Whenever a bill is introduced to address these problems, he always says he will veto them if they manage to pass. He also said that reducing regulations on businesses would help create jobs. Just more bad faith, so that is obviously nonsense.”

 

Example #4

“The speaker of the house’s speech was yet another example of bad faith. She says she is fighting for the common people and against the rich, but she always opposes laws aimed at preventing her from engaging in insider trading. She claims that the green energy bill will be good. Just more bad faith, so that is obviously nonsense.”