Fallacies for Our Time
I think I started to do something like this before, but got side-tracked. Dunno. But wouldn't it be helpful to have a list of timely fallacies--either newly minted ones or classics that are particularly popular these days?
Re: newly minted ones, I was thinking of e.g:
The Support Our Troops Fallacy
(If you oppose the war you oppose the troops)
The Chickenhawk Fallacy
(You can't suport a war unless you've been in one yourself)
The I-Think-The-American-People-Realize Fallacy
(When you want to convince the people of something you tell them that they already believe it)
The Our Enemies are Worse Fallacy
(You try to justify a policy by pointing out how much worse our enemies are)
There's lots more of these I'm sure. Some of these actually turn out to be a little complicated.
I think I started to do something like this before, but got side-tracked. Dunno. But wouldn't it be helpful to have a list of timely fallacies--either newly minted ones or classics that are particularly popular these days?
Re: newly minted ones, I was thinking of e.g:
The Support Our Troops Fallacy
(If you oppose the war you oppose the troops)
The Chickenhawk Fallacy
(You can't suport a war unless you've been in one yourself)
The I-Think-The-American-People-Realize Fallacy
(When you want to convince the people of something you tell them that they already believe it)
The Our Enemies are Worse Fallacy
(You try to justify a policy by pointing out how much worse our enemies are)
There's lots more of these I'm sure. Some of these actually turn out to be a little complicated.
posted by Winston Smith at
3:22 PM
17 Comments:
"The Chickenhawk Fallacy
(You can't suport a war unless you've been in one yourself)"
This is a straw-fallacy, at least as the people I read use "chickenhawk". To be one, you have to have avoided service, to be a fervent advocate of the war, and to denigrate the patriotism of those who oppose the war.
Well, that's not the way the term is usually used on the 'net...
But I'm gonna build up to getting everybody to try to sharpen these things. Many fallacies are vague, and have objectionable versions and unobjectionable versions.
As I have previously pointed out, the chickenhawk argument tends to be used against people of combat age (College Republicans, for example), who refuse to enlist in the war they support, ESPECIALLY since recruitment levels are falling and the army has resorted to back-door drafts to keep troops in Iraq.
"Well, that's not the way the term is usually used on the 'net..."
A majority of people on the web can't distinguish "it's" and "its". You have to talk to the literate people or you're just spitting in the sea.
"The Chickenhawk Fallacy
(You can't suport a war unless you've been in one yourself)"
Okay, I have a question about coming at this from the other direction.
I (personally) do not believe that I could kill someone under any circumstances. Thus, I must rely upon others to defend me and take actions that I myself am unwilling or unable to take.
(I'd be classified as a pacifist, except that I'm too much of a pessimist about human nature.)
Do I then not have an extra obligation to make sure that actions that are taken on my behalf are just, because I am asking someone to do something that I myself would not?
I really am curious here, not trying to argue a point.
This seems different, Rf.
grammatical rules are codified, but the use of the term 'chickenhawk' is emerging. So common usage is more relevant--perhaps decisive--in determining the use of the term.
Nevertheless:
(a) What I'm getting at is exactly the distinction b/w an important/fair characterization of chickenhawkness and a frivolous/unfair one.
(b) Note that similar distinctions/defenses can be made re: the other fallacies. That's particularly important for those of us on this side of the fence to remember.
An excellent riff, WS. As a GOPer, I'll add Tax cuts are a moral issue.
I'm sure there are those who vote their pocketbooks, but I (and apparently all those folks in Kansas whom some think something's the matter with) believe
a) Tax cuts are dynamic, generating economic activity that provides more tax revenue
b) More taxes do not result in the relief of the poor's estate.
I have seen the arguments against a)---that tax cuts create deficits of the same size, and that they are in essence Keynsian (the gov't spends money to stimulate the economy). Perhaps so, but I have a disposition to leave it all in private hands.
I myself hear "tax fairness" arguments from some on my side, but that's a non-starter for me. I'm just a Laffer Curve (that there's a sweet spot for tax rates that maximizes revenue) guy at heart.
As far as "tax cuts for the rich,"
a) sticking it to them is a sort of class envy/reverse tax fairness argument and
b) as near as I can figure, they amount to $80 billion yearly, far less than our current $300+ billion deficit.
*Next*---Illegal equals immoral. ;-)
'Our enemies are worse' = 'How low can we sink ans still pretend to be good guys?'
Intensity of belief is proportional to justification of belief.
Other nations (brown and yellow people, mostly) long for a strongman, not us, no way.
I find that a rich question, Michelle, however, my understanding of the history of philosophy is that the definition of justice continues to elude man.
I happen to be opposed to capital punishment for some rather soft reasons, but I don't accept the arguments that it is unjust, and I have read all of them, I think.
As for pacifism, I've always wondered what I would do if only my own life were at stake and would have to kill to save it, in apparent violation of Jesusian philosophy.
Then I ask, what if it were my family's life at stake? Then I ask, could I require somebody else to let their family die because of my (putatative) adherence to Jesusian philosophy?
So I'm not sure that the freeloading pacifist is really morally implicated in what somebody else does to save his own family, nor is that somebody else really acting in the pacifist's name. The pacifist is just along for the ride.
The pacifist is just along for the ride.
But that's just the point. Pacifists get to reap the benefits of a strong military and a stong police force by living in a peaceful society. Without any risk to themselves.
What would I do if there was a draft or a huge military conflict? Volunteer to serve in the medical corps. But is that enough? Is that enough of a repayment to society?
As far as the death penalty (non-sequitur here?), I'm opposed to it because I do not believe that we EVER have the right to kill another human being, except in cases of self-defense. Same holds true for abortion (although I do not agree with the Catholic church on just when life begins). Same holds true for assisted suicide.
I believe it is arrogant of us to believe that we should decide who has the right to live or die, at least as long as we hold to philosophies that claim such decisions belong solely to God.
Yeah, I think serving in the medical corps is plenty. I could even respect refusing to do that.
Picking through the arguments at the Founding of the 2nd Amendment, I was struck by how much concern was given to conscientious-objector types not being compelled to bear arms and serve in the militia. Cool.
Unfortunately to my mind of course, the contemplation of a Creator or higher moral order in the Declaration of Independence has no legal enshrinement in the Constitution. So, without recourse to an appeal to any Higher Authority these days or even "natural law," we are stuck with convincing each other by any argument possible about what we should do about the questions of life and death that you identify.
As previously noted, I find the arguments for capital punishment the stronger, altho I remain opposed, for reasons of the heart. The conundrum.
Michelle,
Wow, I'm impressed at how seriously you take this problem. Most pacifists I know don't seem worried enough about their free-rider status.
I wish I had a fast answer to this, but I don't. I think the pacifist IS in a philosophically tough position, reaping the benefits without paying the cost.
On the other hand, so long as the pacifist would genuinely be WILLING to pay the cost (i.e. be killed by rampaging hordes of villains) rather than do violence to others... then s/he's not being a hypocrite or anything--s/he's just lucky.
What I doubt--not in your case 'cause I don't really know you--is that most pacifists really WOULD be willing to be killed rather than do violence.
Winston and Michelle,
What about those for whom one feels a personal responsibility and who lack either the maturity or ability to protect themselves, like one's children?
Can I possibly be behaving morally if I refuse to commit violence to protect them?
Should have read all the comments first. I see Tom already made the same point. My bad.
Your very good, IMO. You lend me a credibility I do not often enjoy around here. :-)
I like to think that great minds think alike. ;)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home