Informal Fallacies 2

Ashford University - Ed Tech | Informal_Fallacies_2 JUSTIN Hi, everybody. This is going to be a continuation of the informal logical fallacy HARRISON: discussion. The next one we're going to be talking about is the relativist fallacy. This is a common one that you see. Even in intellectual circles, you see really smart people falling into this fallacy. Well, I guess you can be consistent, but it's very hard to be consistent. The relativist fallacy occurs when you say that, for example, different cultures have different beliefs so what's right in one culture or what's right for one group is right and good. And then something that's opposite in another group is considered right and good. And those two things are right and good for both cultures or groups or whatever it might be. Well, there are different types of relativism, but cultural relativism would say things like, well, we can't judge other cultures because their actions are right based on their own definitions of what is right. And our definitions of what is right and wrong are different. Therefore, what they believe is right is right and what we believe is right is right. And hopefully you can see the problem with this is that-- let's say that we're confronting a culture that subjugates women. And in that culture, it is right or morally acceptable to gang rape a woman, which is actually-- this happens in the world-- when she's been accused of some crime-- often a crime that she didn't commit, but she's just been accused of it. And so a punishment is literally, a group of men will rape her. Now, is it acceptable for us to say, well, in that culture, raping somebody as a punishment is right and good so we can't really judge that culture for what they do? In our culture, it's not right. So if they were here, it would be bad. But because they are where they are, it's not bad. No. Most of us would find that reprehensible. That's not a form of justice then we 1 would like to see in an absolutely just society. And of course, there's the danger of being labeled as, oh, you always think you're right. You Americans always think you're right. But that, again, might be a hasty generalization on their part. I think there's strong arguments to be made that it's not just to gang rape a woman for a crime-- for any crime, and especially for a crime that she didn't commit. And so I think it's OK for us to say, look, that is an unjust law and those practices need to change, just as they can critique our society. We have unjust laws. We have distorted perceptions of reality. And most ethical philosophers believe that there is some sort of ethical truth that guides or that ought to guide human behavior and that we can't just say, oh, rape is right for them and not right for us so that we really don't know what an ethical truth is. No. Most philosophers would say, there is an ethical truth in relation to rape. And I think most of them would say that rape is wrong. And so if a society comes more in line with that ethical truth, then they're coming more in line with the truth in general, just like in our society-- another outcome of the relativist fallacy is you can't claim that there's been moral progress in your society. So looking back at our society-- apartheid, lynching of African Americans, murder of African Americans for no other reason than the fact that their skin color is different-- I think most of us would agree that that was horrible and that our society is a lot better now that we don't have slavery. It's a lot better now that-- and of course, these things still occur, but in a lesser degree. And it appears that we're making moral progress-- that people who fought for civil rights and for equality of the sexes have made moral progress. But if we're a relativist, what we have to say is, well, back then, things were different and things are just different now. So back then, it was right to treat African Americans this way, but now it's not right. And most of us wouldn't want to say that. Most of us would say, no, things are a lot better now, society-wise and ethically. So the relativist fallacy occurs when you fall into the thinking that truth is relative to a 2 society. Now of course, there are certain things that are relative. The side of the street that you drive on is relative to your society. And it's proper to drive on the left hand side of the street in England and a lot of countries that were colonized by England, but for us, we drive on the right hand side of the street. But that's not really an ethical issue. OK. I don't want to spend too much time. The next one-- another very popular informal fallacy is called the red herring. The red herring occurs when somebody presents an argument and then, in the response to the argument, the person drags the conversation to something else. And this happens all the time. It's one of the most prevalent informal logical fallacies. They call it the red herring because a herring is a stinky fish. And I've heard that when they were training these hunting dogs to follow a scent, they would drag the rabbit or whatever on the ground and then the hunting dog would start following the trail. But then somewhere down the road, they would drag a fish-- a stinky fish along the same trail and then off to the side to try and get the dog to learn to not follow the stinky fish, but to keep following whatever it was that originally went through. And that's exactly what happens here. Somebody makes an argument that's pointed it in this direction, and then somebody else diverts the conversation to something else or they don't respond to the point that the person is making. They bring up something else. So for example, you might be talking about taxation and you might say that we should be taxed more so that we can provide more services for different people who are in need. And somebody else, instead of responding to your claim about that, might start talking about how people in need are lazy or something like that. Now, that could definitely be part of an argument against your claim. Or maybe they start talking about how they dislike Obama's policy in general, or something, and they shift the conversation to something that's totally different-- totally off track. 3 Maybe you have a partner who you might believe has some infidelities and you confront that person and you say, hey, look, what's going on these text messages? And they're like, hey, you look really nice today or oh, yeah, well-- yeah, I know I have these text messages, but did you want to go to a movie or-- so you divert the attention to something else in the red herring. It's really important that we focus on exactly what people are saying. And if you watch a political debate, this happens all the time. They don't respond to what's been said. They shift the conversation. I think they call it a pivot in political science parlance or something. The pivot is when you-- you basically do a red herring by taking what the person said and then you pivot to what you want to talk about. So it's like, I know my opponent, President Obama, thinks that we should increase spending on welfare and aid programs in the United States. And if I were to become president, I would tend to focus more on the military-- military spending-- support our troops-- stuff like that. And so what you have there is you have the pivot away from these programs and then you start talking about what you want to talk about. That's a red herring. They praise the pivot, actually, as being one of the ultimate forms of debate tactics. It's often quite fallacious. OK. The ad hominem argument. The ad hominem argument means "to the person-- " to the man or to the woman. So what happens in an ad hominem argument is that instead of attacking somebody's argument or the conclusion that they draw on a specific issue, you attack the person him or herself. So let's start with the add hominem abusive. We've all been victims of the ad hominem abusive, usually on the playground in elementary school or through high school or something. You say something like, well, I think that this is the case. And somebody just says, well, you know what? You're an idiot. So if I say I believe that-- let's talk about an issue-- oh, I believe soldiers should be trained on military ethics and what it means to be a virtuous soldier because I 4 believe that that will help inform their decisions that they make in combat and that we need to have a very developed ethical system in which these soldiers work.

Load more