Question

...
Joe

Well if the situation were reversed......

This is a common phrase I hear a lot, specifically pertaining to the Time Square shooting suspect happening right now,

P1: Wow did you see that shooting suspect in the Time Square shooting, if he was {insert race or anything relating to the suspects identity} then x would've happened. The {insert political opinion on media covering the event} would've done y if x would've happened. 

Another example I see a lot is:

P1: Wow! Did you see that women get sexually harassed? Well if the situations were reversed x would've happened........

asked on Sunday, May 09, 2021 04:43:47 PM by Joe

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

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.

Get the Book

Answers

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
3

I see this a lot in politics too. It's typically the result of heated debates where one side alleges moral or logical inconsistency on the part of another side, arguing that therefore, the position of the other side is discredited.

However...it's not necessarily fallacious; it's often just an unsupported opinion.

Example:

Jessie: Did y'all hear about the guy who dressed up as a cowboy and went around town on horseback lassoin' people's phones out of their hands? They're [the media are] sayin' it's 'escapism'. If he were Black, they'd say he's a criminal who needs a good jailin'. More evidence of systemic racism in our country.

Jessie may or may not be correct that the cowboy cosplayer would have been treated differently if he were black, but...it's an unsupported opinion. We have no reason to accept the conclusion.

As an argument it can also count as hypothesis contrary to fact, but before calling fallacy I think it's better to ask whether the person can support their speculation.

answered on Sunday, May 09, 2021 06:37:50 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
1

Have a look at the hypothesis contrary to fact .

answered on Monday, May 10, 2021 06:46:29 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
1
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

Why do you think people commit this fallacy?

It's very common, and a lot of people think it's valid reasoning to treat hypotheticals as if they were fact.

"Oh, she'd be alive if she were white. This never happens to white folk."

or

"Imagine if it were the other way round! A man would get punished for that!"

I think it's because we tend to over-emphasise certain aspects of a cause, or certain causes, that lead to a given effect (causal reductionism). By giving them too much weight, we think that we can "tweak" causes to change the effect. E.g. overplaying the role of race in a police shooting, leading us to think that it "only" happens to black people.

...or perhaps we're just overanalysing, and people are really just frustrated with perceived racial injustice. It's possibly not a literal statement ("he'd be alive if he were black"), so it wouldn't be fallacious.

posted on Monday, May 10, 2021 07:06:48 AM
...
5
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

Could be a variety of reasons, some of which you mention. Let's not forget simple virtue signaling . Also, this is essentially the habit of arguing in the least charitable way—assume the worst, assume nefarious intentions, assume injustice.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, May 10, 2021 07:31:04 AM
...
1
account no longer exists writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

This itself is a phenomenon I have noticed. That is, people assuming the absolute worst about a situation, and then essentially jumping to conclusions and moving to enact “justice” or “right the wrongs” and such actions based on what are essentially irrational, illogical, and oftentimes over emotional conclusions. This could also tie into certain mental states, such as disaster thinking anxiety (“what-if” thinking) as well. Might this line of thinking itself also be a fallacy? The “Assumptive Injustice” Fallacy or something like that? The argument might look like:

P1 performs and action or makes a statement, and this is observed by P2.

P2 assumes the intentions of P1 are nefarious or unjustified without probing further into the situation. 


I also observe a phenomena that I call “The Assumptive Justice Fallacy,” wherein if someone thinks they have “justice” on their side, any action taken to defend their righteousness is “justified” even if they commit atrocities or cause another individual or group “personal injustice” or unfairness.

In terms of “what-if” thinking, we might call that......The Disaster Fallacy? The error is in always assuming the worst case scenario or worst possible outcome, when there is no hard evidence that the absolute worst will happen in any given situation or event. 

Would these sound plausible as fallacies? 

[ login to reply ] posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2021 06:14:19 PM
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Lucifuge Merciless ]

In your example #1, this is more about statements than arguments, so not really a fallacy. This is pretty much the Hostile Attribution Bias.

Assuming the means justify the ends (i.e., assuming justice) is more of a worldview of philosophical argument. Many would reasonably argue that some actions are justified based on their understanding of "justice."

 

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, May 13, 2021 10:37:26 AM
...
1
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Lucifuge Merciless ]

Might this line of thinking itself also be a fallacy? The “Assumptive Injustice” Fallacy or something like that?

This line of thinking is very common in social justice discussions these days! It actually underpins a lot of "microaggressions". Statements not intended to be bigoted ("you're pretty well-spoken") are interpreted with hostility ("he's saying that because he thinks black people are typically unintelligent and poorly-spoken") and thus the person claims they had a "lived experience" of a racist microaggression, for example.

You also get it when dealing with words/phrases that are ambiguous, but theoretically have one or more potentially bigoted interpretations. The phrase is uttered, innocently, by someone who is not bigoted. They are then accused of "covert", "dog-whistle racism" for example, even if it had nothing to do with the content of the message.

In both cases, assume intent is negative, then say that is objectively what the person meant.

As a way of thinking, it's not fallacious; just the way of someone who may have had a traumatic life experience and thus projects this onto everyone they meet.

I also observe a phenomena that I call “The Assumptive Justice Fallacy,” wherein if someone thinks they have “justice” on their side, any action taken to defend their righteousness is “justified” even if they commit atrocities or cause another individual or group “personal injustice” or unfairness.

That's just "ends justify the means", which, although an incredibly short-sighted (and dangerous) attitude, isn't a fallacy in-and-of-itself.

Alternatively, it could be the result of weighing up costs and benefits, then suggesting that the cost of the means is appropriate for the benefits of the ends. In the U.S. for instance, liberals support affirmative action, which discriminates against whites. They are generally okay with this, as it "improves diversity" and "levels the playing field". You can disagree, but it's not automatically "ends justify means" thinking.

 

 

 

 

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, May 13, 2021 05:05:50 PM
...
0
account no longer exists writes:

[To Rationalissimo]

Sometimes I often wonder if “the ends justify the means” line of thinking is similar to “might makes right.” I’ve kind of thought of such sentiments as an is/ought fallacy: just because I can do something (I have the might and power to do so, the ends justify the means to my goals etc.) doesn’t mean I ought to do something. Then again, I suppose it depends on what your goals are. If you can do something without undesired consequences to yourself, and it’s conducive to your goals, then one can perform such an action. 

I suppose since I come at most things from a more meta-ethical standpoint, I tend to question the very notion of “justice” itself, as in what is the actual nature of justice. The reason I tend to call it the “assumptive justice” fallacy is because any person or group who acts in the name of “justice,” (or so they claim) seems to be operating under the impression that their notion of justice is objective, absolute, and binding. Those adhering to certain ideologies can claim their “team” or group have achieved “justice” (such as in the affirmative action example) but some would argue that this makes it unfair for others, thus sowing “injustice” from the perspective of those who claim such policies still consist of discrimination, it only being a matter of which group is discriminated against. No one person or group wants to be discriminated against of course, so then it becomes a matter of arguing about “facts” of history and justice, and being on “the right side of history” by holding some groups to different standards than others. Should someone alive today pay for the “sins” of the past and if so, why? To achieve justice and right the wrongs of history. Ok, how is this brand of justice objectively morally correct? Such thoughts, as alluded to by Dr. Bo above, tend to get into more about philosophical world views as opposed to just fallacies and pure logic and are beyond the scope of discussions on “just logical fallacies.” 

Nonetheless, when I had the fallacy in mind of assumptive justice/injustice, it was to hint at the philosophical idea of justice not always being absolute, hence when person or group achieves justice, and can cause ressentiment to fester within those who perceive the justice of another party as injustice to their own party. These ideas are part of why the current world is in such disarray, different perspectives, but such is the nature of existence.

PS: Please excuse the different sized text at the end, not sure why it’s like that, but hopefully it’s all good.🤔

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, May 20, 2021 02:17:14 AM
...
richard smith
0

Could be opinion, biases or any other number of other reason. You would have to dig deeper as to why they think that way.

 

answered on Monday, May 10, 2021 08:58:54 AM by richard smith

richard smith Suggested These Categories

Comments