Read Chapter 6 and 7 and complete the review questions.

;." CHAPTER

:.,·.·.•.·.•'J .... · ........ ..... . ... ':.·. . ,,,:.

,·.. '.

:',~'!' ' '

i ·. . r - .

The Fallacies and Ethical Argument

. will be able to: After studying thzs chapter, you . . d d 'b the different types of logical fallacies in

L01 Identify an escn e argument.

. d d 'b the different types of fallacies that affect Identify an escn e ethos or character in argument. .

'f d d 'be the different types of emot10nal fallacies in Idenn y an escn

L02

argv.ment. Describe the characteristics of ethical argument, and use them in creatin g your own argument.

In an advertisement ~or a ~ealth club, an attractive, mus_cular m~ is embracing a beautiful, slim woman. Both are dressed m exemse clothing. The caption reads, "Studies show diets don't work. This picture shows exercise does." No further evidence is provided. You do not have to be an expert in argument theory to sense that something is wrong with this proof.

There are encounters in arguments, as in the case of the advertisement just described, in which a reader will find material that may appear at fir5t

to be a proof but really is not a proof at all-it is a pseudoproof or what is commonly called a fallacy. Fallacies lead an audience astray, they distort and distract, they represent inadequate reasoning or nonreasoning, and

they either exaggerate or oversimplify a claim instead of proving it. The author of the advertisement in the opening example expects

the reader to accept a number of unstated warrants that most people would reject were they explicitly stated: ( 1) the studies about dieting are a reasonable sample to show that dieting does not change the shape 01

your body; (2) the best way to take up effective exercise and develop a well-shaped body is to join an exercise club; and ( 3) if you improve tbe shape of your body, you will find romance on the floor of the exercise

ll

in

1g is

tat is stort aJld

club. The visual support is . Fallacies in Logic 225 b . . the picture f h

em racmg m their exercise clothes. The fio t e _two attractive people who are that support, of course is th nal claim, based on tho , at you should . . se warrants and

Suppose you encounter th . Jom the exercise club. 1

. e exercise club d . fee overweight, out of shape d a vert1sement at a time h , an unloved Y . w en you argument because the warrants d . ou might be tempted to believe th

1 . an the sup e

to be 1eve or want to be so F 11 . port reflect what you would • h · a acies can seem . . w1s support what an audience already b l' convmcmg when they appear to

Warrants that few peopl e ieves or wants to believe. e would find convi .

ground necessary for successf 1 ncmg can create the common u argument if they h ld someone's deep prejudices u O an emotional appeal to

, nreasonable bias . . You may have encountered W b . . es, or 1rrat10nal beliefs or wishes.

e sltes hke those d example, that present support a d supporte by hate groups, for

n warrants that you w ld f' As you analyze the reasonin h . ou never md acceptable.

g on t ese sites you d' h . . that it supports only on . ' iscover t at 1t 1s extremist and

e narrow view The s . f . unreliable exaggerated . · upport is O ten distorted, insufficient,

d . · .'

1 ' or oversimplified. Furthermore, the warrants are untrue

an emot10na material is used t r . ' . . . o s ir up excessive feelings rather than to prove a ration~l pomt. You can also often identify a number of specific fallacies on such sites.

W nen you are tempted to believe an argument that does not seem logical to you see~s to have something wrong with it, consider why you are tempted to bew::ve it. If fallacies and unacceptable reasoning are weakening the claim or proving the argument false, analyze it and expose these problems.

You will encounter fallacies in advertisements or other visual media, letters to the editor, some forms of journalism such as blogs, and other argument writing that you find both in print and online. Avoid quoting sources that contain fallacies, and avoid fallacies in your own writing. Fallacies in your writing, whether created by you or by the authors you choose to quote, weaken your argument and damage your ethos. Recognize fallacies by asking, "Is this material even relevant? Is it adequate? Do I agree? Does it support the claim?" Leaming the common types of fallacies will also help you recognize and avoid them. Described here are the most common ones, in the same categories we have used for genuine proofs: logic, character (ethos), and emotion.

Fallacies in Logic . will see that they are really pseudoproofs

Fallacies pose as logical proof, but you ble remembering all of their names; th . t 11 You may have trou . db at prove nothing a a · . d h fallacious thinking charactenze Y many people do. Conce:1trate m_stea·rrO::e:a:t material; exaggerating; providing each of them such as introducing i . h rboring unacceptable warrants;

, n no support, a . Wrona unfair inadequate, or eve ·mplifying the chmces.

;:,, ' . 1 sions· and oversi drawing inappropnate cone u '

LO 1 Identify and describe the different types of logical fallacies in argument.

226

-

Chapter 7 The Fallacies and Ethical Argument

Begging the Question . . . d b the arguer who begs the question, and the cl .

NO support 1s provide Y am· in one form or another. For example ,, aim is d ver and over ag , , Cap· simply restate , 0 b 1-t keeps criminals from committing n-. ItaJ d rime ecause ~•!lltd punishment eters c 'd . other words. Have you ever encountered er

simply restates the sam~ I ea inb cause they say it is true? If the indiv1·ct People · th'ng 1s true e llal ·

who claim some . I h . then such a claim may be accurate and rel Is a • d thonty on t e issue, . . ev:i,., recogmze au 1. . . ho claims that a work of art is immoral beca '-<l!t. • h er a po Itinan w . . llse h ~agm~,. owev . , . for ·udging the morality or immorality of art are ProVid e thmks it _is. No cntedna J t the subjective opinion of someone who may kn ect. We are simply aske to a~ce~ . . . he uestion. ow very little about art. This individual is begging t q

Red Herring A red herring provides irrelevant and misleading suppo~t that pulls the audience away from the real argument. For example, "I ~on'~ believe w: ~hould elect this candidate because she w ould have to put her kids !n day care is a red herring; crnalifications to hold office have nothing to do with house~old arrangements. \;vhether or n Dt Barry Bonds is a great baseball playe: a:11-d well-hked b! fans is a red hening in a IegaJ case that must judge whether he is innocent or guilty of having taken pe:rfo r:man cc.-·e:nhancing drugs.

Non sequitur is Latin for "i1 does not follow." In this type of fallacy, the conclusion does not follovv from the evidence and the warrant. Here are some examples: the professor in the Hawaiian shin and gold chains must be an easy grader; the self-consciously beautiful woman who h as applied for a job as an administrative assistant would not do the job well; that man with the powerful new laptop must be highly skilled in the use of computer technology. The warrants for these three examples are that the pro- fessor's clothes indicate how he will grade, beautiful women cannot be good admin· istrative assistants, and owning powerful equipment implies the ability to use it. You can probably sense the problems with these warrants. They are so difficult for moSt people to accept that none of these examples come across as convincing arguments.

Straw Man

A straw man involves attributing an argument to an opponent that the opponent never ~ade and then refuting it in a devastating way. The arguer sets up an idea, re~utes ~t, and appears to win, even though the idea may be unrelated to the issue bei_ng_ discusse~. For example, a political candidate might set up a straw man by danrung that his opp_onent has said he is too old to do the job, when in fact the oppO; nen~ ~as never mentioned age as an issue. Then the candidate refutes the age isSUe b_) ~etailing ~he advantages of age and appears to win the argument, even though thiS ~s not a~-issue at all. In fact, by refuting this false issue, the candidate may give the lillpress1on that he could refute any other arguments put forth by the opposition as well. The use of a straw man suggests competence where it might not actually exist.

stacked Evidence Fallacies in Logic

Stacking evidence to represe . di . nt only ·des gives a storted 1mpres . one side f 51 • s1on of th . o an · Il etworkmg enhances and impro e issue. For issue that clearly has t

h 1 ves so · 1 exarnpl wo facebook e ps us reconnect With Ion c1a bonds, the onl e, ~o prove that social

Il dless updates about our expe . g-lost friends T . y evidence given is that e . nences a d , Witter all

waY to stay instantaneously in t n activities a d ows us to send out a . . ouch E , n textin . Jllisunderstand1ng, m1scommunicati . xarnples where social g prov1?es us with

on, or a loss of inf networking leads to 1rnacy are n Manufactured Evidence ever mentioned.

l]sing fake evidence to prove a cl . . . f h . aim will disc d' the reputation o t e individual wh re It an entire argum d . o makes it ent an rum 2oo4 when a South Korean scientist up. A famous example occur d .

1 . announced h h d re m

through c on1ng, a development that 1 e a created human embryos stem cells from them for use in fu thwou d enable him to extract embryonic h ld

r er research th . research e great promise for curin . . on erapeut1c cloning. This were published in Science, widely acce gt c~rtamh diseases an~ injuries. The results A few months later, the announced reps e ahs t e moSt credible scientific journal.

earc results were e d · . fabrications. Because he had used fake or f 1 'd xpose as mtent1onal

f h · ft· • . . a se evi ence, the scientist had to step

down rom -~IS o icial positions and Science retra t d h' c e 1s papers.

Unreliabr2: or Insufficient Evidence Evidence sho u ld be verifiable, which means you should be able to look it up in another source and find the same information. There should also be enough evidence, and major information that could change the way one interprets the evidence should not be omitted. DNA evidence is often used in criminal cases to prove guilt. However, it is also increasingly being used to exonerate criminals who were wrongly accused of crimes in the first place and who have been in prison for many years in spite of their innocence. In these cases, the evidence used to convict them was insufficient or unreliable, and new DNA evidence proves that it was unreliable.

Exaggerated or Oversimplified Evidence Here is an example of what can happen when exaggerated evi_denc_e is usedf. In 2d01 o

. b h . t Harvard Umvers1ty was orce to a renowned researcher of pnmate e avior a . • table . f hi f din because other snent1sts were no issue a public retraction of some o s_ Ill gs ame ex eriments. Skepticism among to replicate his results when conducting_the s . h th:researcher's public disavowal Other scientists about these results, combmed wit_ ld t doubt the validity of all of his own findings has led many in the academIC wor o iments in question, and his research, even ~ork completely unrelat~d to_ the e?a~: him on academic leave. has also resulted in a decision by Harvalrd Ud~1cvreerds~:r at~ ~rgument. Fo~ e~aml;~:e:~

0 . . •d e can a so 1s to crunina

vers1mplifying eVI enc ld "good" people and not f I ·s sort because ~gue that handguns should be so to . n based on evidence o t 11 ~IIl:tplifies. It is difficult to accept a conclusio 1th as no actual content.

227

228 Chapter 7 The Fallacies and Ethical Argument

Distorted Statistics . ulated or changed so that they appear to support a

Statistics can be ~an1r t For example, the owner of a company argu claJni

L02 Identify and describe the different types of fallacies that affect ethos or character in argument.

whe~, a~tually ~~;y ano :~e- good since the average salary is $40,0oo. that salanes ~n th e P_ d~ "d al makes $120,000, while four others rnak aqs left out is that one in iv1 u . e on1 $20,000 each. Presenting the average salary to suggest an equitable Pay sca1~ distorts the truth.

Either-Or Some arguments are oversimplified by the arguer an? presented as black-or. white, either-or choices when there are other alternatives. Some ex~rnples are "This country can either have a strong defense program or a strong soaal Welfare program," "We can develop either a strong space program or an u:ban ~~velopment program," "A woman can either be a mother or have a ~areer, and . A man can either go to graduate school or become a company man . No alternative, middle. ground, or compromise positions are acknowledged.

Post hoc is short fo r post hoc, ergo propter hoc, a Latin phrase that translates as "after this, therefore because of this. " To put it more simply, post hoc is the fallacy of faulty cause. For example, it is fa llacious to claim in an advertisement that people will be more attractive and m ore popular if they drink a certain brand of soda. Look at other advertisements on television or in magazines, and you will easily find other examples of post hoc, the claim that one thing causes another when there is actually no causal relationship between them. Think about the outdoor healthy virility of the Marlboro man, for example, and the suggestion that he got that way by smoking cigarettes. Another example is the person who finds romance by serving a particular spaghetti sauce or using a specific cologne.

Hasty Generalization

Sometimes arguers "jump to conclusions" by basing a conclusion on too fe w examples. For example, someone may conclude that the U.S. government is hope· ~essly _flawed ?ecause t~e p~esident and the Congress cannot reach agreement on

particular piece of legislati:on, or that since there are episodes of school violence a~ros~ the country, all schools are inherently violent and dangerous Hasty gener· a izat10ns often contribute to stereotyping. .

Fallacies That Affect Character or Ethos =-~~----=-==-=-=-=-.2~~~~~~~--- Fallacies that are aimed at attackin h . . of evidence for proof are mi I ,.:J!_ gd c aracter or at using character mstead

s eauu 1g an can damage ethos.

Ad Hominem Emotional Fallacies 229

Ad hominem means "to the man" . rson's character rather tha in Latin. An

pe k d · n a Perso , • ad horn· for such attac s unng political c n s ideas or po1· _znem argument attacks a 1 Th " h amp a. ic1es Th t 11ernse ves. e c aracter issue ,, f igns, and so . e press is notoriou . b . , or ex are som f s

Jll ore senous, su stantive issues S ample, may . e o the candidates

· h · · uch ad h receive m ·riforrnation t at is provided abo t h ominem dis . ore attention than 1 h . u t e ca ct· d cuss1on scr r . t i,eir ideas or t e issues that cone n 1 ates' person 11. u mizes negative v . k ern them Th a ives rath th

. 5 10

discredit. Ta e another exam 1 · e purpose of d h . er an about 1 h' 1 . . p e of an ad h . a ommem ar beliefs or et ica qualities of a perso omznem dispute b . . gument 'd h n are expo d , Ut m this case th P iety is sai to ave no validity be se to negative attack F e

1 . . ca use of th • or example

i,abits of a te evision evangelist Thi·s d h . e careless personal and f' . , D • h · a omznem a mancial froIIl the issue ( ere, bad actions) and t d rgument directs attention away

. db' d . owar thepe b P rejudiced an iase against an individ 1 rson as ad. Thus we become

f 1 · f ua personally O • • . instead o eva uating acts or ideas when ad h . , ran mstltution generally,

omznem exchange predominates.

Guilt by Association The fallacy of guilt by association suggests that people's character can be judged by examining the character of their associates. For example, an employee in a company that defrauds the government is declared dishonest because of his employment with the company, even though he may have known nothing of the fraud. Or, an observer is thrown into jail along with some political protesters simply because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Political figures are often judged as morally defective if they associate with people with questionable values and reputations. It is assumed that these individuals are members of these groups and guilty by association.

Using Authority Instead of Evidence . . t' n The arguer relies on personal authonty

This is a variation of begging the q_ues 10 F. ample a salesman tells you to buy h evidence or ex , to prove a point rather t an on d · t rthy and he knows your neighbor.

. h est an trus wo the used car because he is on

Emotional Fallacies . 0 - . otional materials are often introduced mt

d d' stracnng em mples Irrelevant unrelated, an i d' nee Here are some exa · ' · the au ie ·

argument to try to convince

h . g so B I . somet in , andwagon Appea 1 . that everyone is do•~~ videos, so you

ters on the c aun ir own you Tu . o inion polls The bandwagon fallacy cen everyone is rnaking_t~~ and other pub_~~ is that since You should too. For example, on and do it. politI eal. rbe suggesudo t it as well. should also J·ump on the bandwagthe bandwagon :!~n you should a P

0 rnote ain opJ_..L.J> ' are sometimes used to pr d hold a cert a tnajority of the people polle

L03 identify and describe the differen t types of emotional fa llacies in argument.

230 . nd Ethical Argument

Chapter 7 The Fallacies a ed by what everyone else see . •nfluenc llls 1 ourself being i . n on the bandwagon appeal is to You fee Y . your actIO h b d Wba.

When . whether basmg about to jump on t e an ~agon and t be domg, decide do Maybe you are b t if you are about to dnnk too 'th eat 11 want to · db okay, u d · •i!Uch you rea Y hich woul e . ·t then maybe you nee to get off th more vegetables, w one else is doing i ' at

h 1 because every alco o bandwagon.

Sl ippery Slope . that suggests that if we allow one thin • are tactic · 1 di g . -slo e fallacy 1s a sc . . down a slippery s ope to saster. This

The slippery pill immediately be shdn~.g mental and social issues. If we an 01

,, happen we w d. to enVIIOn 'f ry

to . ' etimes introduce m I se all the forests, Or 1 gay marriage is fallacy I~;~: a few trees, we will soo~ g~ will be threatened. loggers . . t'tution of marna

1. d the entIIe ins I lega 1ze ,

• t: lsP Nee~~ Creating 'a · '-'·' 1 to what people value and think ' u l 0arned, appea d h . Emotional proofs, as you na '1 e :c . 1•· t a false sense of nee w ere none exists · , ... arguer vvih crea e k the a they need. Somet1n1es o .. ,., · · ... · · . . ed in order to ma e rgument

. . , _ _ 1.,,,,· htf'n .,n :e x1st1ng ne wif • or will unreahsHcall r 1 '-d~g'., - ·_ '··- ~.:., ,.,,,., llent examples. The house e 1s told

• • &. 1' ·tViJ"'P- d•Cn1a .... .:, exce . more convincing. , ,.u\ ~r ··- '

1 '-\,' -- _ . h 1 . h gloss that only a certam wax can h . . - lr1 ·t,~}1e ' r,0 or Wit . a 11g 1 h'ld th

she needs as mmg -~ " ' \'~; ·,,. • he want smart, successfu c I r~n, so ey provide . Parents ar+e r~m~~°.··. d ~h~t~. The ad for the health club described at the should buy a tablet fo.c each of the : b th weight loss and romance creates a beginning of this chapter that promises o I ned about their weight and false need for p eople who n1ay be only :ague _Y cancer the possibilities of romance before reading this ad.

Distorted Emotional Appeal

· h lated to the Irrelevant and unrelated emotional examples _or stones t at are unre. horrible subject are sometimes used to try to prove a pomt. For example, proVIding . ·cte details about the suffering of a terminally ill patient to prove that assisted_ sm

1 a ly

. h' . arucu ar should be legal can be irrelevant and unrelated to the clarm. T 1s 1s P . Jrug true when the patient's suffering can be relieved in other ways, such as WI~ rted therapies. Faulty analogies, like comparing governments to hungry wolves, disto_ , visuals, like showing how hap~y people can become by doing abdomjnal exerc:;

1 ;

extreme slogans, hke those pnnted on placards in public demonstrat10ns, and 1 language aimed at particular groups of people represent misuse and distortion °

emotional appeal. On close scrutiny, they can be exposed as ineffective proof. These examples of fallacies provide you with a good sense of what constitu_res

· ·1 · · A d nu1ne lal ac10us reasomng. rme with this list and with the tests of validity forge proofs listed under "Tests of Validity" in the Summary Charts (pages 428-433_1- you now have what you need to evaluate the strength and validity of the proofs JJJ an argument. This information will help you make evaluations, form rebuttals~: challenge weak arguments, and create arguments of your own that rely on genu

1 . . I . . s a11c proofs mstead of fallacies. We now eave unethical argument with its fallaoe faulty evidence and tum to the subject of ethics and morality in argument.

Emotional Fallacies 231 : , ,; i""\ •

"'~, i,, .

our fast-paced, 2 417

, multimedia World is particularly susceptible to fallacious argument. From misleading ads ~o Photos~o~ped new: Photos, mudslinging political campaigns to factually . orrect Web siteS, our digital world 1s awash with arguments that commit one or another kind of inc b I "d · · fallacy. The steps e ow prov, e a guideline for identifying and analyzing fallacies online.

••,step 1: Find the Fallacy

• What type of fallacy is presented (i.e., logical, character, or emotional)?

• What specific form does it take (i.e., hasty generalization, faulty causality, either-or, etc.)?

•,, Step 2 : Describe the Multimedia Features Used to Present It • Thro ug h what medium is it presented (Web site, social media post, online video, email , etc.)? • W hat mu ltimedia elements does it include?

, , , St r1:p 3: Identify the Flaws • W h at fl aw or mistake does this fallacy involve?

To put th is an a lysis into practice, let's look at a specific example. The screenshot below comes from t h~ \IVe b sit e for The Anti-Vaccination Action Group, an organization that argues against the

The Anti-Vaccination Action Group "Dispelling the Myths About Vaccine Safety"

St op the medical-industrial complex from endan gerin g our childre n! Si nu toda to stem the rising tide of vaccination s!

:,~-Ir:\': ::;~l;: rnn.,.in, 1.8.-.i

I

H

232 Chapter 7 The Fallacies and Ethical Argument

J ~\,. ;L.:~ I k ~t continue

I k at this selection as well as the sample step-by h "ldren Take a oo ·ste need to vaccinate young c

1 • d th"s Web site make? What fallacy does it commit') P Wh t argument oes I •

analysis that follows: a If media elements play? And what roles do different mu I

• t & Step 1: Find the Fallacy . . . t about the medical nsks that vaccination poses to k" se-and-effect argumen

• In ma mg~ c~u . 1 . 1 fallacy specifically the fallacy of the hasty generalization children, this site commits a ogica , .

. 0 ., the Multimedia Features Used to Present It rt~• step 2: escru:,e . - . b. . f t tual and visual elements to make its argument. • This site uses a com mat,on o ex

• The photo of the baby receivi ng a vaccin atio n and the cartoon image of the mother defending herself ag ainst an onslaught o-f vaccin ation nee~les make a blanke~ argument b h d Osed b" all vacines regardl ess of the disease they are designed to a out t e anger P , '- ' · · • . · f ·

prevent. These visual elements dovetail with the wn_tten elem:,nts here, rem orcmg the site's stated mission t o "dispel th e myths about vaccine safety.

,,J; "$, ,=/,f t t t Step 3: Juerrti~Jf tfi~~ «"tfr.l~fs • As noted above, this site rnmmi'.ts the fallacy of the hasty generalization. Rather than make

a more narrowly focused argument that identifi es the specific risks posed by specific types of vaccines, this site uses its visual imagery t o''create a cartoonish version of the vaccine debate. And rather than include links t o med ica l studies or statistics that might support its claim, the site relies on its· blanket generalization about " vaccination" as its sole support.

Activity

Go online and find an example of a fallacy. First, identify in which of the three categories (logical, character, emotional) it belongs. Next, describe the particular fallacy it commits (i.e., stacked evidence, either-or, post hoc, etc.) .- Then use the three steps outlined above to analyze this fallacy in greater depth.

Desuibe the characteristics of ethical argument, and use them in creating yo ui own argument.

_E_th_i_cs_ an_d_ M_o_r_a_l1_· ty=---in_ A_r~g:_u_m_e_n_t _ _ ___ A p_erson's ability to argue persuasively has been recognized as a potentially po~er· fuJ m fluen~e over other people for centuries. Thus the classical argument theons~ Anstotle, Cicero, and Qumt1lian, all recognized that citizens should be schooled argumentation so that they could argue for the causes that would benefit sodetY· They also argued that society needed moral arguers because without rheflld immoral arguers would gain too much power. Plato criticized ~guers who use their persuasive powers to manipulate people to achieve their own selfish eods.

Ethical arguers must have th Ethics and Morality in Argument 233

f e courag

11onestlY rom a strong sense of e and Willing 11ave a strong sen~e of responsibiii.~rsonal integrity an::~l~o argue logically and . their commumty that they b r Y and feel obliged to d es. They should also :J11otional and motivational ape ~:~e are. necessary or :ig:~c~~ for the changes with value systems that will ben~fit s et~ucal arguers use shoul~s~quentl~, the

l earn hoW to better distinguish betw not Jus~ one individual but 11 ef coi:isistent

• 1·k c · · ,, een ethical d a o society To "Afgumg i e a itlzen section bel an unethical appeal 1 k . ow. s, oo at the

Hannah Sternberg's essay "Conserv t· F .. ' a 1ve emm1sm I N t the argument that conservative polit· d s O an Oxymoron" (pages 238-239), makes In order to check this argument for icts an. slufpport for women's rights are not incompatible

. · . po ent1a allacies II · this general issue connects to the question f . . '_as we as to better understand how below. o c1t1zensh1p, look closely at the sample discussion

t t • Th~nking Like a Citizen • \t\/hy do I care about this issue?

Feminism is one of the most controversial topics in today's culture, one that is connected to some of our society's most important and topical debates. As such, it is also an issue that tends to divide people, not only politically but also emotionally. Because it raises such strong feelings and is so susceptible to misunderstanding, I feel it is especially important that debates over feminism avoid fallacies at all costs.

• Who else cares about this issue? Because it is so wide-ranging an issue, it could be said that the subject of feminism is of concern to everyone. More specifically, those interested in civil and gender rights or who have an active interest in cultural politics would find this discussion especially

relevant.

•••Arguing Like a Citizen • What potential fallacies might an argument like this commit? ..

There are logical character, and emotional fallacies to which discussions of f~mi~ism a,r,e , . . h h. k. (" feminism is either a vulnerable Among the logical fa/Jac,es are ett er-or t ,n ,ng ,.e., . . ·111 d to . . . . sing femimsm w1 ea g

ood or all bad) and faulty causality (1.e., supporttng or oppo . . r attacking . f h t ad hominem ,,.e., a terrible outcome). Among the fa/Jac,es O c arac er are h motional fallacies . . f .& • • t ) Among t e e the character, background, or ,ntentIons o ,em~n~s s_. osal will inevitably lead

·.&· • d" "d I fi mm1st idea or prop . are slippery slope (i.e., a specI,1c, ,n ,v, ua_ erted emotional appeals (i.e., presentmg a to a chain of undesirable outcomes) and_ d~sto

d · f fem1n1sm).

cartoonish or caricature verSion ° continued

h" I Argumen-c 7 The Fallacies and Et ,ca Chapter

. Like a Citizen t t t Acting .d these fallacies?

rete action could I take to avoi "d the tvpes of fallacies outlined above • What cone . ay to avo, J 1 ral terms the most effective w . that highlight the common ground that /n gene,• , . • t elated issues ·.&·

. t foster discussions of femm,s -~ . h tually share. /n more spec1,1c terms, this ,ds.:; ring or opposed political parties m,g tact whose views on a particular feminist~

,, ,e . . I with classma es lk . might involve enrolfmg ,n a c ass ttending a forum (campus ta , public event,

·.u t from my own, or a related issue are d111eren le with whom I disagree. tc) t ,., ~t brings together spokespeop E . _, IC!

Act ivity . w·ithin your community. First, conduct + 1 • . f rticular importance . Choose an issu e th at you ,ee is

O pa h . •,nvolve? What key questions or problems . 1 : . •('. What does t e issue ·

some basic research into t 1 15 1,;,s ue. · . ' · -_ 1• ...1 _ ... h 'ndividuals and/or groups, who care most t h d"ff,... rort st~kQh ,J,liP• 5 1,. .e 1 doesit raise?Vv'h o are .e !

1 t: · "'. '·· , .. .... . •·,~ ·· · ' i-h' •,ssuediffer?Next,takeacloserlookat

A d h ,•0 ,1r, ,.,,, - ~,e,.."f"eCT ives on 1s about this issue? n · ow ( A ,: 1"~ 11 r' ' ~;" ,. .. port its point of view. What . . , . .. 1 --~:i k..:. bddi=:1s uses to sup

the appeals or_ proofs eac~i s;de -~:i~f:;~. t.) ~ \:~.: :{.~ / ·11 ·cies would you consider to be the least types of fallacies do you tietect ? ,,rh , .... h 01 ~n i. .. :? •~ a a . , Is on which to ar ue this ethical? Why? And w hat, in you r.vi~vv, is the most eth ,ca1 set of appea g particular issue?

Unethical individuals who argue mainly to manipulate public opinion often use unethical tactics to influence and gain adherence to their points of view. Such tactics include opinion polls that push for particular points of view, exaggerated 1 or manipulated statistics, manufactured evidence, outright lies, and deliberately fallacious reasoning. Language can also be manipulated to change audience perceptions. For example, a recent government report on hunger was criticized for substituting the terms "low food security" and "very low food security" for the word hunger. It would seem that some people thought that changing the w~rd hunger, with its strong negative connotations, to vague multiword terms with weaker connotations might subtly minimize the sting of the problems of poverty and starvation in the country.

I · · hical t is important that you learn to recognize the differences between et

a nd

unethical argument. You can begin by asking the questions that follow aD<l th en ~earchi'.1g for infor~ation that will help you answer them. Discussing thes~

~ue st

~ons with others will help you achieve a sense of whether an argurnen is e

th ical or unethical. Gathering additional information about the issue aotl

the arguer can also help. Read reviews, editorials, commentaries, and look up biographical information about the author online Inf lf abou t the auth , ffT · • orm yourse a or s _a I iat10ns an~ background to help you discover his or her true purpose nd motives, pomt of view, and values. Look for additional information on these

en ch ed ~ly ce ed he rd th ty

:al 1d se 11t 1d lP -i e se se

rters, whether stated explicit! . Review Questions 235 rria . h h y or nnpl" . . forJJ1at10n on t e r etorical situati icnly, in the JP d positions held by others. on and Understand trgument itself. Gather aO ome of the perspectives

k These Questions to Help You D . ,AS • I etermine Wh h r unethica : et er an Araum t l . o v en s Ethical

1 gas the arguer made an adequ t . ? D a e effort t consequences. oes the arguer also d o understand the issue a d .

1 ? un erstand th . n Its peop e. e positions held by other

2 Is the arguer just and fair-mind d? · , · e Is the convincing? Can I accept the warrant;? Sh suppor! fair, accurate, and not already? ould the claim be qualified, if it is

3_ Does the_ arguer sincerely believe that the . . . the best mterests both of the audien dpofsition he or she is proposing is in

. . . ce an ° the larger society? 4. Is the posit10n being proposed actually in the best i .

the larger society? Who is benefit d d h . nterests of the audience and e an w o is burdened or hurt?

5. Does the arguer seem to be manipulating the ct· b h" . f . . au ience y idmg the real purpo:e no t~e argument,_by ~smg mappropriate emotional appeals, by manu- factun n5 evidence, by usmg maccurate evidence, or by telling lies?

6. Is the arguer changing the definition of words or substituting unusual words for comn1only used words to cloud people's perceptions of the issue?

7. Is the a rguer recasting or rewording an issue to reduce its threat when it actually -represents a significant threat?

8. Do the in1ages distort or exaggerate, or do they present the individual or situation accurately? Do they function as reliable support that enhances the argument, or are they irrelevant, inaccurate, or insulting so that they weaken the argument?

Use this list of criteria to judge the ethical and moral qualities of the argumentation you read or view and let them also guide you when you write. You will be more convincing to your audience.

Review Questions - •b d doproofs? Under what 1. What are fallacies? Why are they also descr~ e as ::tu ? (L01 .L02, L03)

circumstances might you be tempted to believe a a acy_- '. . ? (L01, 2. What are some of the qualities that characterize fallac10us thmkmg.

L02, L03) d rwo emotional 3 . . 1 . t o that affect ethos, an · Name at least two fallacies m ogic, w

fallacies. (L01, L02, L03) . urnent? (L0 4) h d ethics in arg 4· What is the difference between et os an t (L04)

. . f hical argurnen . 5· Describe some of the qualities O et