One Philosophy Question

Homework to be submitted in class on Tuesday 3-5-2019 • Please identify fallacies in the arguments on euthanasia, abortion,

and disability as presented in the following two videos (focus on Philip Blond and Peter Singer). Make sure you describe if those fallacies are justified or not. Who makes a better argument in the discussion and why?

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx45Rb4jWs0&t=555s [watch full]

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwyQATye5BU [watch till 6:30]

Inconsistency

• Accusing people because they say different things at different times.

• X’ s claim is inconsistent with something else X has said or done, therefore, X’s claim (belief, opinion, proposal etc). stands refuted.

• “The president says now that he believes in global warming, but ladies and gentlemen, when the president was campaigning he scoffed at the idea.”

Public-Private rift

• “Gore’s mansion…consumes more electricity every month than the average household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service…more than 20 times the national average…In total Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.”

– Tennessee Center for Policy Research (a day after Gore received Oscar for Inconvenient Truth).

Tu quoque (you are another/you too)

• Special case of ad hominem (rejecting someone’s argument because what he or she says is inconsistent with what he or she does).

- I don’t see why our company should be singled out by the city just because of some leakage problem at our chemical storage facility. The city should pay more attention to the more serious pollution that is occurring at its landfill site.

• Jim: “Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing." Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"

Genetic Fallacies

• “To evaluate an idea or an argument, one should focus on that idea or argument, not on its origin.” p. 312

• These kind of ad hominem arguments target the source or origin of the speaker’s belief. When origin is irrelevant to the truth of the claim, such arguments commit the genetic fallacy.

• This pamphlet is put out by the people who have been trying to suppress minority voters. You wont’ find a word of truth in it.

• Armed guards in public schools? You think that’s a solution to gun violence? That’s just something the NRA put out there.

Non Sequitur = does not follow • Appeal to Fear (argumentum ad terrorem)

- Gavin Newson would make a terrible governor. Do you seriously think I could be interested in being your girlfriend if you vote for him?

• Appeal to Pity (argumentum misericordium) - Jane is the best qualified candidate: after all, she is out of work and desperately needs a job.

• Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum) - Listen, I am telling you that my son did not cheat on his exam: if you don’t agree, we will step outside and settle the matter man to man.

• Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum) - Well, obviously capitalism is the most efficient economic system ever devised by humankind. Everybody knows that.

Exercise IV (p. 321)

1. For centuries throughout Europe, women were burned for being witches, so there must have been lots of witches.

2. There must be life on other planets, because most people think there is. Just read a few tabloids.

Appeals to Authority

• Abortion is immoral because the church father says so.

• Lester Brown, universally respected author of the yearly State of the World report, has said that the destruction of tropical rain forests is one of the ten most serious worldwide problems. Thus, it must be the case that this is indeed a very serious problem.

• https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Uri+Geller+Spoon&&view=d etail&mid=EBEAA27E46B1AB8FBDB1EBEAA27E46B1AB8FBDB1&&FO RM=VRDGAR

Uri Geller Mystic or Magician? A question of authority

James Randi, magician Uri Geller, psychic

• I’ve decided not to take any more philosophy electives. Some philosophy is kind of interesting, but the problem is that it consists merely of opinions and not knowledge. At least that’s what my psychology professor says.

Intelligence: Genes or Environment?

• Cyril Burt: Professor of Psychology at University College London from 1931 to 1950

• Widely regarded as one of the world’s leading educational psychologists and authorities on the measurement and inheritance of human intelligence.

• Burt researched on fifty identical twins separated at birth and raised in contrasting environments

• Found IQ depends on heredity rather than environment.

• Falsified research data, invented correlations

• Biased findings

Appeal to authority – when it’s not a fallacy

1. Is the cited authority in fact an authority in the right area? (YES)

2. Is this kind of question settled by expert consensus? (YES)

3. Has the authority been cited correctly? (YES)

4. Can the cited authority be trusted to tell the truth? (YES)

5. Why is an appeal to authority being made at all?

An appeal to authority is relevant when the authority is really an authority on the subject being considered and/or we don’t have more direct information and can’t access it easily.

Too many citations can lead to the fallacy of excessive footnotes.

Exercise III (p. 318)

1. The surgeon general says that smoking is hazardous to your health, so it is.

2. The surgeon general says that abortion is immoral, so it is.

3. Michael Jordan says that Air Jordan sneakers are springier, so they must be springier.

Fallacies of Vacuity

• Vacuous arguments begin by “assuming its conclusion, so the argument makes no real progress beyond its own assumptions.” p. 323

1. Circular Arguments (Argument premises contain its conclusion)

2. Begging the question (can happen with or without circularity. When you cannot have a good reason to believe an argument’s premises, unless you have an independent reason to believe in its conclusion)

3. Self-Sealing (making argument immune to criticism or irrefutable by being self-sealing)

Circulus in Porbando

Circular Reasoning

• “If and only if one of the premises that is used directly or indirectly to support a conclusion is equivalent to the conclusion itself.” p. 324

• Meeting your opponent’s criticism by repeating the original assertion in the premise in the conclusion or restating the conclusion in different words.

• Happens when we want to defend a claim we hold strongly but have trouble finding reasons.

• Harder to detect as they may come hidden in a suppressed premise that repeats the conclusion or they may be lost in a long and complex argument.

Circular reasoning (premise = conclusion)

1. Terrorists can’t be stopped without torture C. Therefore, terrorists can’t be stopped without torture. 1. Terrorists can’t be stopped without torture, because, if you do not use torture, there is no other way to stop terrorists. 1. Terrorists can’t be stopped without torture because they are so callous that their goal is to kill and maim innocent civilians. SP: anyone whose goal is to kill and maim innocent civilians cannot be stopped without torture. C. Therefore, terrorists can’t be stopped without torture… 1. The only way to prevent terrorists… is to inflict enough pain on them…. C. Therefore, terrorists cannot be stopped without torture

Exercise I p. 327

• Intoxicating beverages should be banned because they can make people drunk.

• 1. Intoxicating beverages should be banned

• 2. Beverages that make people drunk should be banned (SP)

• 3. Therefore, intoxicating beverages should be banned

•Capitalism is the only correct economic system because without it free enterprise would be impossible

• P1 Without capitalism free enterprise would be impossible.

• P2 An economic system without free enterprise is not correct (SP)

• C. Therefore, capitalism is the only correct economic system

Premarital sex is wrong, because premarital sex is fornication, and fornication is a sin. 1.Premarital sex is fornication 2.Fornication is wrong (sin by definition is wrong) 3.Therefore, premarital sex is wrong.

Avoiding Circular Argument

• Your premises should not assume something that is claimed in the conclusion of the argument

• Try to provide additional grounds to strengthen your argument

Beg the question

• Does not mean “to raise the question” or “to beg that the question be asked” or “to evade the question.”

Incorrect use of Begging the question (common distorted usage) • Me: I cant understand why all the news media give so much coverage

to Lindsay Lohan. Its ridiculous.

• You: I’m sure they do it just to sell papers and magazines.

• Me: Yeah – which begs the question, why do people want to read about her?

• You: That’s not begging the question. That’s simply raising the question.

• Me: Huh?

Correct usage of Begging the Question

• You: I can’t understand why the news media give so much coverage to Lindsay Lohan. It’s ridiculous She’s not that important or newsworthy.

• Me: What? Of course she’s important and newsworthy! Lindsay Lohan is a big deal. Why, just look at the newsstand. People magazine, the Post, you name it. She’s everywhere.

• You: That begs the question.

• Me: Huh?

Source: https://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/begging-the-question-again/

Begging the question fallacy (Petitio Principii)

• “An argument “begs the question” if and only if

(1) it depends on a premise that is not supported by any reason that is independent of the conclusion and

(2) There is a need for such an independent reason”

Before you accuse your opponent of begging the question, ask them to give independent reasons for the disputed premise. If they are able to provide you an independent reason then they did not beg the question. p. 327

Examples

• Murder is morally wrong. This being the case, it follows that abortion is morally wrong.

1. Murder is morally wrong

2. Abortion is murder

3. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong

• Abortion is unjust killing of an innocent human being, therefore abortion is morally wrong

• It is wrong to kill a person, abortion is not wrong because the unborn is not a person.

1. It is always wrong to murder human beings.

2. Capital punishment involves murdering human beings.

3. Therefore, capital punishment is wrong.

• Clearly, terminally ill patients have a right to doctor assisted suicide. After all, many of these people are unable to commit suicide by themselves.

Pro-Life Argument against Abortion (equivocation and begging the question) 1. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings

2. Fetuses are innocent human beings. (3) Therefore, it is wrong to kill fetuses

Genetic sense: A human being is any organism with human DNA Moral sense: a human being is any individual that is a full-fledged member of the moral community (individual with a full set of rights) Premise 1: It is wrong to kill innocent organisms that have human DNA. P1 begs the question that is, assumes the very thing under dispute Premise 2: Fetuses are innocent members of the moral community and have full set of rights. P2 begs the question, that is, assumes the very thing under dispute

Begging the question fallacy

• The world in which we live displays an amazing degree of organization. Obviously this world was created by an intelligent God.

• The Bible is the inerrant word of God, because God speaks only the truth, and repeatedly in the Bible God tells us that the Bible consists of His words

Clairvoyance and Vacuity

Self-Sealers • These arguments are set up in a way that nothing could possibly

refute them, thus sealing them off from criticism. Such an argument is objectionable as it provides one who is skeptical no reason to believe it and the argument is empty because there is no testable predictions and so no way to determine if its false.

Three kinds of Seal-Sealers

1. Self-sealing by universal discounting: all possible objections are dismissed, often in ad hoc or arbitrary ways.

2. Self-sealing by going upstairs: commits ad hominem fallacy to dismiss objections. Says objector is not in a position to understand the argument (looks down on critic).

3. Self-sealing by definition: Using fallacy of equivocation (using words in a way that a position becomes true by definition) to circumvent objections. Makes a claim and then subtly redefines that critical term in a way that guarantees the truth of the claim.

People always act in a selfish way.

Those who sometimes act altruistically are also acting thus.

How about Mother Teresa? Was she completely selfish?

Certain words can also be used to seal off arguments

(true, enough, thoroughly, real)

1. “All true conservatives support school prayer.”

2. “If you think over it thoroughly, you will agree with me.”