Become an active member of our fallacy-discussing community (or just become a lurker!)
Appeal to Self-evident Truth
Description: Making the claim that something is "self-evident" when it is not self-evident in place of arguing a claim with reason. In everyday terms, something is "self-evident" when understanding what it means immediately results in knowing that it is true, such as 2+2=4. The concept of self-evidence is contentions and argued among philosophers based on their ideas of epistemology. This means that what is "self-evident" to one person is not necessarily self-evident to another. However, some ideas are clearly self-evident and some are not.
Logical Form:
Person 1 claims Y without evidence.
Person 2 asks for evidence.
Person 1 claims that Y is self-evident.
Example #1:
Richie: Lord Xylon is the one true ruler of the universe.
Toby: Why do you think that?
Richie: It is self-evident.
Explanation: People often confuse their own subjective feelings and interpretations with self-evidence. Richie may believe that Lord Xylon is the one true ruler of the universe, but his belief cannot be used in place of evidence.
Example #2:
Sara: No human should ever kill another human being.
Dottie: Why not?
Sara: It's self-evident.
Explanation: The fallacy is in the implied claim that the argument needs no evidence or explanation because it is "self-evident."
Exception: This fallacy depends on the claim of “self-evidence” not being self-evident. A claim that it reasonably self-evident would not be fallacious:
Richie: I exist.
Toby: Why do you think that?
Richie: It is self-evident.
Tip: If you can't explain something, that doesn't mean you are dealing with something that is self-evident; it could just be your failure to explain something.
References:
This a logical fallacy frequently used on the Internet. No academic sources could be found. For the concept of self-evidence, the following reference was used:
Kelly, T. (2016). Evidence. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/evidence/
Eat Meat... Or Don't.
Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?
As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.
In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.
Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
