Question

...
Kostas Oikonomou

Self-righteousness examples

I believe the examples given for the self-righteousness fallacy fit better the prejudicial language fallacy.

The self-righteousness fallacy examples are:

  1. Ricki: Do you think aborted fetuses have feelings?
    Jenni: Any honorable and kind person would have to say they do have feelings. So yes. 
  2. Jenni: Is a fetus a human being?
    Ricki: No, because I am not a monster and would never suggest killing an unwanted human being is okay.
  3. Jenni: Do you consider a fetus to be as valuable as a human being?
    Ricki: No, because I am not a monster and would never suggest killing an unwanted human being is okay.

And and example of prejudicial language examples is:

  1. All good Catholics know that impure thoughts are the work of the devil, and should be resisted at all costs.

I say that the first 3 examples doesn't fit the Self-Righteousness Fallacy because no intentions are present in the arguments. While there are three claims ("fetuses have feelings", "fetuses are human beings", "fetuses are as valuable as a human being") which are supported by attaching moral value into believing those claims.

I also have a problem with the second example of prejudicial language that says:
"Students who want to succeed in life will do their homework each and every night."
That's only a belief and could be classified as factually incorrect. I would expect something more to it in order to match the prejudicial language - something like
"All nice people know that successful students do their homework each and every night"
The analogy for the first example would be:
(simple claim)
Impure thoughts are the work of the devil, and should be resisted at all costs.

(prejudicial language)
"All good Catholics know that impure thoughts are the work of the devil, and should be resisted at all costs."

I think a self-righteous example would be something like:
"I want my child to be a law-abiding citizen, therefore it's justified to physically abuse my child."

or 

"I want the best for my child so don't you dare telling me that hitting him is harmful."

Do you agree?
asked on Friday, Dec 30, 2022 02:46:23 PM by Kostas Oikonomou

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
0
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

These are some good points. I wonder what Dr Bo thinks.

I guess he might say that the examples show "implied intent", namely that to be an honourable and kind person (1), a non-monster (2, 3). But I don't know about the strength of that argument.

posted on Friday, Dec 30, 2022 03:54:56 PM
...
0
Kostas Oikonomou writes:

[To TrappedPrior (RotE)]

Ok, but then what's the difference between the two types of fallacy? Whenever you would commit Prejudicial Fallacy, since you would use terms of moral value, you would always imply a good intent. Therefore whenever you would commit Prejudicial Language you would also commit Righteousness Fallacy or Self-Righteousness Fallacy. So why bother then distinguish the two (or three)?

EDIT: As I see it the difference between the two fallacies is on whether in your argument you cite a specific moral person (righteousness) or you choose to use adjectives that carry moral goodness(prejudicial language). Righteousness fallacies are a subcase of Identity Fallacy or Genetic fallacy (another pair of fallacies that I don't know their distinction) 

[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Dec 31, 2022 10:33:44 AM
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

I will have to look at this in detail when I start the revisions for the next version, which should be in the coming weeks. Thank you.

posted on Monday, Jan 02, 2023 07:37:37 AM

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

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book. 

Take the Online Course

Answers