AVOIDING BAD ARGUMENTS
Recall that a good argument has true premises plus a conclusion that follows from those premises. A bad argument fails at least one of these conditions—
it has a false premise or a conclusion that does not follow. This failure, however, can appear in many different argument forms, some of which are extremely common. These commonly bad argu- ments are known as fallacies. They are so distinc- tive and are used so often that they have been given names and are usually covered in courses on criti- cal reasoning. Though flawed, fallacies are often persuasive and frequently employed to mislead the unwary—even in (or especially in) moral rea- soning. The best way to avoid using fallacies—or being taken in by them—is to study them so you know how they work and can easily identify them. The following is a brief review of some fallacies that are most prevalent in moral argumentation.
Begging the Question Begging the question is the fallacy of argu- ing in a circle—that is, trying to use a statement as both a premise in an argument and the conclu- sion of that argument. Such an argument says, in effect, p is true because p is true. That kind of rea- soning, of course, proves nothing.
For example:
1. Women in Muslim countries, regardless of their social status and economic limitations, are entitled to certain rights, including but not necessarily limited to suffrage.
2. Therefore, all women in Muslim countries have the right to vote in political elections.
This argument is equivalent to saying “Women in Muslim countries have a right to vote because women in Muslim countries have a right to vote.” The conclusion merely repeats the premise but in different words. The best protection against circu- lar reasoning is a close reading of the argument.
Equivocation The fallacy of equivocation assigns two different meanings to the same term in an argument. Here’s an example that, in one form or another, is com- monplace in the abortion debate:
56 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 56
1. A fetus is an individual that is indisputably human.
2. A human is endowed with rights that cannot be invalidated, including a right to life.
3. Therefore, a fetus has a right to life.
This argument equivocates on the word human. In Premise 1, the term means physiologically human, as in having human DNA. This claim, of course, is indeed indisputable. But in Premise 2, human is used in the sense of person—that is, an individual having full moral rights. Since the premises refer to two different things, the conclu- sion does not follow. If you are not paying close attention, though, you might not detect the equiv- ocation and accept the argument as it is.
Appeal to Authority This is the fallacy of relying on the opinion of someone thought to be an expert who is not. An expert, of course, can be a source of reliable information—but only if he really is an authority in the designated subject area. A true expert is some- one who is both knowledgeable about the facts and able to make reliable judgments about them. Ulti-
mately, experts are experts because they carefully base their opinions on the available evidence.
We make a fallacious appeal to authority when we (1) cite experts who are not experts in the field under discussion (though they may be experts in some other field) or (2) cite nonexperts as experts. Expertise in one field does not auto- matically carry over to another, and even non – experts who are prestigious and famous are still just nonexperts. In general, on subjects outside an expert’s area of expertise, her opinions are no more reliable than those of nonexperts.