Question

...
David Blomstrom

What kind of fallacy is calling a conman a philanthropist?

Media headlines announce that Mr. X has made another mega-donation - $50 million - to public education, at the same time calling him, not surprisingly, a "philanthropist." However, no one really knows exactly who the money is turned over to or how it is used.

The media don't mention the fact that the schools use a product sold by Mr. X's company. Another fact that's seldom mentioned: public education continues to decline, even in Mr. X's home town.

More astute observers know that Mr. X is a very corrupt conman. His "philanthropy" is just a stunt that helps him whitewash his image, gain more control over public education and sell more products, all in one fell swoop.

What kind of fallacy is this, where evil people "donate" a tiny percentage of the money they steal or exploit from people, often investing it in their own business enterprises, then label themselves "philanthropists"?
asked on Wednesday, May 09, 2018 01:04:49 AM by David Blomstrom

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

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
0
I wouldn't call this a fallacy. The larger picture here is what is known in psychology as the halo effect . This is when someone does something universally recognized as good, and all the bad they do is overshadowed by the good or even reinterpreted with some positive spin. We often forgive our heroes their misdeeds to maintain the illusion of the hero.

A few other comments:

  • Be careful labeling one's good deeds "stunts" or assuming you understand the true intent of the individual. It might be the case, but only the individual knows his or her true intent (unless that person made it very clear as in "I'm just donating because I don't want to look like a greedy ass!").
    One can be a conman AND a philanthropist—the two are not mutually exclusive. Very often our good deeds yield a direct benefit to ourselves.
    Think about what do you really mean by "a tiny percentage"? In our culture, 10% is quite generous.
    If Mr. X gives $$ to cause Y, is it his fault that cause Y is still a problem? How much worse might the problem be with out the money?


answered on Wednesday, May 09, 2018 05:51:27 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Comments