Arguments by analogy are common in moral reasoning.
Arguments by analogy are common in moral reasoning. For example:
1. When a neighbor needs your help (as when he needs to borrow your garden hose to put out a fire in his house), it is morally permissible to lend the neighbor what he needs.
2. Britain is a neighbor of the United States, and it is in dire need of help to win the war against Germany.
3. Therefore, it is morally permissible for the United States to lend Britain the material and equipment it needs to defeat Germany.
This is roughly the moral argument that Presi- dent Franklin Roosevelt made during World War II to convince Americans to aid Britain in its strug- gle. The strength of the argument depends on the degree of similarity between the two situations described. At the time, many Americans thought the argument strong.
The fallacy of faulty analogy is arguing by an analogy that is weak. In strong arguments by analogy, not only must the degree of similarity be great but also the similarities must be relevant. This means that the similarities must relate specif- ically to the conclusion. Irrelevant similarities can- not strengthen an argument.
Appeal to Ignorance This fallacy consists of arguing that the absence of evidence entitles us to believe a claim. Consider these two arguments:
• No one has proven that the fetus is not a per- son, so it is in fact a person.
• It is obviously false that a fetus is a person, because science has not proven that it is a person.
58 Á PART 2: MORAL REASONING
213006_03_039-064_r1_el.qxp:213006_03_039-064_r1_el 8/3/15 9:46 AM Page 58
Both these arguments are appeals to igno- rance. The first one says that because a statement has not been proven false, it must be true. The sec- ond one has things the other way around: because a statement has not been proven true, it must be false. The problem in both these is that a lack of evidence cannot be evidence for anything. A dearth of evidence simply indicates that we are ignorant of the facts. If having no evidence could prove something, we could prove all sorts of out- rageous claims. We could argue that because no one has proven that there are no space aliens con- trolling all our moral decisions, there are in fact space aliens controlling all our moral decisions.
Straw Man Unfortunately, this fallacy is rampant in debates about moral issues. It amounts to misrepresenting someone’s claim or argument so it can be more easily refuted. For example, suppose you are trying to argue that a code of ethics for your professional group should be secular so that it can be appreciated and used by as many people as possible, regardless of their religious views. Suppose further that your opponent argues against your claim in this fashion:
X obviously wants to strip religious faith away from every member of our profession and to banish reli- gion from the realm of ethics. We should not let this happen. We should not let X have his way. Vote against the secular code of ethics.
This argument misrepresents your view, distort- ing it so that it seems outrageous and unacceptable. Your opponent argues against the distorted version and then concludes that your (original) position should be rejected.
The straw man fallacy is not just a bad argument—it flies in the face of the spirit of moral reasoning, which is about seeking understanding through critical thinking and honest and fair explo- ration of issues. If you agree with this approach, then you should not use the straw man fallacy— and you should beware of its use by others.
Appeal to the Person Appeal to the person (also known as ad homi – nem) is arguing that a claim should be rejected solely because of the characteristics of the person who makes it. Look at these:
• We should reject Alice’s assertion that cheat- ing on your taxes is wrong. She’s a political libertarian.
• Jerome argues that we should all give a portion of our income to feed the hungry people of the world. But that’s just what you’d expect a rich guy like him to say. Ignore him.
• Maria says that animals have rights and that we shouldn’t use animal products on moral grounds. Don’t believe a word of it. She owns a fur coat—she’s a big hypocrite.
In each of these arguments, a claim is rejected on the grounds that the person making it has a particular character, political affiliation, or motive. Such personal characteristics, however, are irrele- vant to the truth of a claim. A claim must stand or fall on its own merits. Whether a statement is true or false, it must be judged according to the quality of the reasoning and evidence behind it. Bad peo- ple can construct good arguments; good people can construct bad arguments.
Hasty Generalization Hasty generalization is a fallacy of inductive reasoning. It is the mistake of drawing a conclu- sion about an entire group of people or things based on an undersized sample of the group.
• In this town three pro-life demonstrators have been arrested for trespassing or assault. I’m telling you, pro-lifers are lawbreakers.
• In the past thirty years, at least two people on death row in this state have been executed and later found to be innocent by DNA evidence. Why is the state constantly executing inno- cent people?