Archives for May 25, 2022

Description:

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person claims there is an exemption to a general or universal principle (rule, law, policy, etc.) without adequately justifying this exemption.  The fallacy has the following general form:

Premise 1: Principle P applies generally or universally.

Premise 2: No reason or irrelevant reason R is given that P does not apply to A.

Conclusion: A is an exception to P.

 

This is fallacious reasoning because simply asserting that there is an exception to a general or universal principle does not support this conclusion. This fallacy most commonly occurs when a person attempts to exempt themselves (or someone else) in an unjustified way from a principle (or principles) they accept as generally applying to the circumstances in question. This version can be presented with this form:

 

Premise 1: Person A accepts Principle P and applies it in circumstance C.

Premise 2: Person A is in circumstance C.

Premise 3: Person A offers no reason or an irrelevant reason R for an exemption to P.

Conclusion: Therefore, Person A is exempt from S.

 

The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet provides no or an irrelevant reason for this exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:

 

Premise 1: Jane accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.

Premise 2: Although she murdered Bill, Jane claims she is an exception because she really would not like to be punished.

Conclusion: Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.

 

This is a blatant case of special pleading. Since no one likes being punished, this cannot justify the claim that Sally alone should be exempt from punishment. If it did justify an exception, it would apply to everyone and thus undercut the general principle. Since this fallacy occurs when the justification for the exception is inadequate, this leads to the obvious matter of determining when the exception is warranted. When addressing this, philosophers generally turn to the Principle of Relevant Difference.

From a philosophic standpoint, the fallacy of Special Pleading violates the Principle of Relevant Difference. According to this principle, two people should be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them. This principle seems reasonable; since it would not seem rational to treat two people differently when there is no relevant difference between them.

To use a silly example, it would be odd for a parent to insist on making one child wear size 5 shoes and the other wear size 7 shoes when the children are both size 5 and there is no reason at all for the difference in treatment.

The Principle of Relevant Difference does allow for different treatment. For example, if Henry barely works and Nancy is a very productive worker the employer would be justified in giving only Nancy a raise. This is because productivity is a relevant difference.

Since it can be reasonable to treat people (and other things) differently, there will be cases in which some people will be exempt from the usual standards. For example, if it is Bill’s turn to cook dinner and Bill is very ill, it would not be Special Pleading if Bill asked to be excused from making dinner. Bill is offering a relevant reason for the exemption, and it would be a good reason for anyone who was ill and not just Bill.

While determining what counts as a relevant and reasonable basis for exemption can be a difficult task, offering no reason at all for an exemption would clearly be Special Pleading. Thus, unless a clear and relevant justification for exemption can be presented, a person cannot reasonably claim to be exempt. This does lead to the normative and practical problem of determining when a difference is relevant and can justify an exemption.

Sorting out such matters goes far beyond “pure” logic and into the realm of the normative (ethics, law, religion, etc.). Because of this, there can be considerable disagreement about whether a pleading is special or not. Such disagreement can even occur in good faith. For example, when I went to college, I had to prove that I was registered with the Selective Service to get my federal financial aid. Female college students did not; women are exempt from signing up for Selective Service. Obviously, some people believe that a person’s sex is a relevant difference for being required to register but it could be argued that this difference is not relevant, and this is a case of Special Pleading.

While Special Pleading usually involves a person trying to get an unjustified exemption, this fallacy could also technically be used against someone to fallaciously argue that they are exempt from something they want to apply to them. For example, someone might accept a general principle of free expression, but engage in Special Pleading to fallacious argue that it does not apply to those they dislike. If they offered no reason, there would be no disputing the fallacy has been committed. But if they offer a reason, then the question arises as to whether the reason warrants the exemption.

 

Defense: To avoid committing the fallacy yourself, be sure to consider whether you really have a justification for the exemption you want to claim. To avoid falling for this fallacy when used by others, check to see if they are offering a relevant reason that justifies the exemption. This can take you beyond the realm of “pure” logic and into a debate in the normative realm, such as ethics or law. Be careful to not assume that just because you disagree with someone’s reasons that they must be committing Special Pleading. Likewise, be on guard assuming that a person is not engaged in Special Pleading just because you like the reason they give.

 

Example #1

Bill and Jill are married. Both Bill and Jill have put in a full day at the office. Their dog, Rover, has knocked over all the plants in one room and has strewn the dirt all over the carpet. When they return, Bill tells Jill that it is her job to clean up after the dog. When she protests, he says that he has put in a full day at the office and is too tired to clean up after the dog.

 

Example #2

Jane: “Turn of that stupid stereo, I want to take a nap.”

Sue: ‘Why should I? What are you exhausted or something?”

Jane: “No, I just feel like taking a nap.”

Sue: “Well, I feel like playing my stereo.”

Jane: “Well, I’m taking my nap. You have to turn your stereo off and that’s final.”

 

Example #3

Mike: “Barbara, you’ve tracked in mud again.”

Barbara: “So? It’s not my fault.”

Mike: “Sure. I suppose it walked in on its own. You made the mess, so you clean it up.”

Barbara: “Why?”

Mike: “We agreed that whoever makes a mess must clean it up. That is fair.”

Barbara: “Well, I’m going to watch TV. If you don’t like the mud, then you clean it up.”

Mike: “Barbara…”

Barbara: “What? I want to watch the show. I don’t want to clean up the mud. Like I said, if it bothers you that much, then you should clean it up.”

 

Example #4

Student: “Did you grade the paper I turned in?”

Professor: “I did. It was great. I really liked it.”

Student: “So I got an A?”

Professor: “No, an F. That is why we are having this talk.”

Student: “But why did you give me an F?”

Professor: “Well, I think the paper is great and I really liked it because I wrote it I guess you did not check to see who wrote it.”

Student: “I agree that plagiarism is wrong, but I really do not want to flunk this class.”

Professor: “No one does.”

Also known as: The Camel’s Nose

Description:

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person argues that one thing must inevitably follow from another without adequate support for this conclusion. It can also occur when there is not a claim of inevitability; if the inference that one thing will follow from another is not adequately supported, then the fallacy occurs.

Most commonly, the fallacy occurs when there are a series of steps or gradations between one thing and the other and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will be bypassed. This reasoning has this form:

 

Premise 1: X has occurred (or will or might occur).

Conclusion: Therefore, Y will occur.

 

This is fallacious because an argument gives no reason to believe that one thing must/will follow from another when no reason is offered to support that claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there are a significant number of steps or gradations between one thing and another.

A person might commit this fallacy in error, or they might do so intentionally. For example, a politician might claim that regulating social media content would lead to the end of free expression when they are well aware that this is just hyperbole.

This fallacy is often used to argue that X should be prevented to prevent Y. In such cases, Y is something that the target audience is supposed to believe is bad. For example, someone might claim that any censorship would lead to the banning of all books to argue that there should be no censorship. This reasoning can be presented as an extended argument:

 

Argument 1

Premise 1: X might happen.

Conclusion: If X happens, then Y happens.

Extended Argument

Premise 1: If X happens, then Y happens.

Premise 2: Y is bad

Conclusion: X needs to be prevented.

 

While it is usually reasonable to prevent bad things, the extended argument rests on the unsupported conclusion that Y must (or will) happen if X does. Since this reasoning lacks logical force, it gets its influence from psychological force. This psychological force is often created by using hyperbole in presenting Y. Other fallacies can also be used in conjunction with the Slippery Slope, such as using a Straw Man for Y or employing Appeal to Fear or Appeal to Spite to make the target audience afraid or angry about Y. Y can also be a complete fabrication. The goal is to use the target audience’s emotional response to Y to convince them both that X will lead to Y and that X must be stopped.

While they are rare, there can be what might be called Positive Slippery Slope fallacies. These would use the Slippery Slope logic, but Y would be presented as good, and the conclusion would be that X should be done to bring about Y. For example, a con artist might claim that if someone invests a little in their scam, then they will inevitably get a huge return. This fallacy could also be committed in good faith, where the person committing it really believes that good will result.

What can create some confusion is that non-fallacious Slippery Slope arguments are also called Slippery Slope arguments. In fact, people sometimes exploit this confusion in bad faith. A non-fallacious Slippery Slope is an argument in which adequate reasons are advanced that support the claim that if X happens, then Y will (or is likely to) happen. This reasoning has this form:

 

Premises: The steps/connection between X and Y are presented and adequately supported.

Conclusion: If X occurs, then Y will occur.

 

Provided that the connection between X and Y is adequately established, this can be a strong inductive argument. For example, one could make a good Slipper Slope argument that experimenting with highly addictive drugs could lead to addiction. Good Slippery Slope arguments are often boring, since they tend to involve presenting all the intervening steps and showing how they are connected. A fallacious Slippery Slope will almost always have far more persuasive power, which is one reason why the fallacious versions are more common.

 

Defense: Since a Slippery Slope fallacy involves asserting that one thing follows from another without adequate evidence being provided, the defense is to see if such evidence is presented. If not, then the fallacy has been committed.

Since those intentionally using this fallacy will usually try to make Y appear especially awful or scary, it is also important to be on guard against the psychological influence of this tactic. One should ask whether they have been given a reason that this will or must occur, or is there merely an attempt to use fear, anger, etc. to cover up a lack of evidence for the alleged connection?

 

Example #1:

We must stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they’ll be charging $100,000 a semester!”

 

Example #2:

“Europe shouldn’t get involved militarily in other countries. Once they send in a few troops, then they will send in thousands to die.”

 

Example #3:

“You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they’ll walk all over you.”

 

Example #4:

“We’ve got to stop them from banning pornographic web sites. Once they start banning that, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!”

 

Example #5

“We can’t allow same-sex marriage; if we allow that, then people will be marrying their cars.”

 

Example #6

“We can’t allow different-sex marriage; if we allow that, then people will be marrying their cars.”

 

Example #7

“Media companies need to stand strong against the woke mobs who want more trans characters in shows and movies. The next step is brainwashing our kids to get sex changes!”

 

Example #8

“Media companies need to stand strong against the mobs who want more straight characters in shows and movies. The next step is making all our kids straight!”

 

Example #9

“Look, if we do not pass this law that requires people to have state IDs in order to vote, then the next thing that happens will be millions of illegals voting in every election.”

 

Example #10

“I’m against this tax cut. If I do, the next thing you know there will not be any taxes. That might sound great, but that also means no roads. The entire country would collapse!”

 

Example #11

“We cannot allow any restrictions on abortion. If we allow even one, then it will be the Handmaiden’s Tale! Only for real!”

Description:

Now is Not the Time is a rhetorical technique in which someone attempts to end a discussion, divert attention from the original issue, or conclude that something should not be done by asserting that “now is not the time” or some variation of that phrase. It can be considered a variant of the Red Herring but is common and distinct enough to merit its own entry.

As an attempt to end discussion or divert attention, the fallacy would have this form:

 

Premise 1: Issue A is being discussed or argued.

Premise 2: Person P asserts that now is not the time to discuss A.

Conclusion:  Issue A should not be discussed now.

 

Alternatively,

 

Premise 1: Issue A is being discussed or argued.

Premise 2: Person P asserts that now is not the time to discuss A.

Conclusion:  The discussion should switch to the issue of when the time would be right to discuss A.

 

Both are fallacious arguments because simply asserting that now is not the time does not prove that discussion of the original issue should cease.

When used to fallaciously argue that something should not be done now, it would have this general form:

 

Premise 1: Person A proposes doing X.

Premise 2: Person B asserts that now is not the time to do X.

Conclusion:  X should not be done now.

 

This is poor reasoning because simply saying that something should not be done now does not prove that it should be done now (this can also be seen as circular reasoning).

While this fallacy has no logical force, it can have considerable psychological force. This fallacy is most often used in the aftermath of some terrible event, such as a school shooting. In such cases, it can draw psychological force from the belief that there should be a period of mourning or reflection after a terrible event. The fallacy is also often phrased in a way that makes it appear that doing X now would exploiting or misusing the event. For example, in response to a gun control proposal made after a school shooting, a politician might say “now is not the time to score political points.”

This fallacy can also gain an illusion of reasonability because there can be good reasons as to why now is not the time. For example, strong emotions can lead to poor decision making (see the various fallacies involving emotional appeals) and hence a case can be made for waiting for the feelings to cool. As another example, decisions made in haste can also prove defective, so taking the time to consider and reflect can be reasonable. The problem with the fallacy is, of course, that the person committing it is not offering these reasons; they are relying on psychological rather than logical force to support their conclusion. But what if someone does offer those reasons?

If relevant reasons are advanced that support the claim that now is not the time, then there would no longer be a fallacy of reasoning. For example, if someone presented credible evidence that laws hastily created in response to an awful event, such as a terrorist attack or particularly gruesome murder, often have serious negative consequences, then this would provide a good reason to wait on passing such laws. But even this can be misused in bad faith.

A person can provide good reasons that now is not the time but do so in bad faith. In this case, the person’s intent is to use a reasonable argument in a bad faith to divert attention, end discussion, or conclude that nothing should be done. This tactic is often used to delay until memory and feelings have faded in the hopes that nothing will be done. This has the following general form:

 

Premise 1: Person A proposes doing X.

Premise 2: Person B gives reasons that now is not the time to do X.

Conclusion:  B says that X should not be done now, but their intent is that X should never be done.

 

As would be suspected, the person using this tactic will not reveal that their goal is that X never be done. Instead, they will pretend that they just want a delay. As such, they are operating in bad faith.

While determining bad faith can be challenging, if someone uses this tactic repeatedly for the same issue, then that can be evidence they are operating in bad faith. For example, if a politician always responds to gun control proposals made after school shootings and other mass shootings with “now is not the time”, then it is reasonable to suspect that they are operating in bad faith and are using this rhetorical tactic. If that same politician quickly exploits other awful events, such as a murder committed by someone who entered the country illegally, to advance their own legislative agenda, then it would be even more reasonable to suspect they are operating in bad faith.

 

Defense: The main defense against this fallacy is to check to see if a relevant reason is being offered as to why now is not the time. If no such reason is offered, then there is no reason to accept the conclusion. It is also, as always, sensible to consider if the person is operating in bad faith; exposing this can help weaken the psychological appeal of the fallacy.

If someone does offer a relevant reason that now is not the time, you should still consider whether they are using this argument in bad faith. Most commonly this involves arguing that now is not the time when their bad faith intent is to delay until interest fades, thus preventing anything from being done.

 

Example #1

Senator Bedfellow: “As a nation, we all mourn the loss of these schoolchildren to a crazed gunman. It is a tragedy that they were killed. But now is not the time to get caught up in the politics of gun control to score partisan points. It is a time for thoughts and prayers.”

 

Example #2

Senator Bedfellow: “As a nation, we all mourn the loss of those killed yesterday. It is a tragedy that they were killed by a terrorist. But now is not the time to get caught up in the politics of anti-terrorism to score partisan points. It is a time for thoughts and prayers.”

 

Example #3

Senator Bedfellow: “As a nation, we all mourn the loss of the young person killed last month. It is a tragedy that they were killed by a person in this country illegally. But now is not the time to get caught up in the politics of immigration to score partisan points. It is a time for thoughts and prayers.”