Fallacy where two non-conflicting things are treated as being in conflict
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
There's a logical fallacy that's been frustrating me since I was a child, and from time to time I've tried to identify what it's called with no success. It's so common that I see it used nearly on a weekly basis. If this site can't help me, I doubt anyone can!
The fallacy takes this form:
"You watch too many trashy TV shows. You should be reading great literature!"
The implication here is that one cannot both be doing something of which the speaker does not approve (watching trashy TV shows) and something unrelated of which the speaker does approve (reading great literature). The two things being compared are typically things that the speaker imagines to be in conflict but, in fact, are not -- and what those two things are often based on cultural biases. In the example above, the speaker has a bias for high vs. low culture, but someone who has a bias in favor of social conservatism might say, "Instead of dating so many different people, you should be going to church."
What's the name of this fallacy?
Answers
3Hi Steve,
In your example
You watch too many trashy TV shows. You should be reading great literature!
is more of opinion that one's time would be better spent reading more and watching TV less indicated by "too many." Granted, they should have said "You should be reading more great literature!" as I can see how, as it is written, might imply can't read any as long as they are watching all that trashy TV. But we try to give people charitable interpretations of their arguments.
Your second example is also one of opinion (or moral judgement):
Instead of dating so many different people, you should be going to church.
The form is basically, "Instead of doing [bad thing] your should do [good thing]." At least in these examples, I don't see any real conflict in that there doesn't appear to be any claim that because you are doing one you cannot do the other. We have a "should" rather than a "could," which makes this more of an opinion than an error in reasoning.
The key words here are , "trashy, great and should."
"Trashy" is poisoning the well, and "great" is doing the opposite of poisoning the well. And "should" is an opinion based on biases.
The entire argument is biased opinion and a form of psychological manipulation.
Like Dr Bennett said, it's more of an opinion than any error in reasoning. Though arguably, they're being snobbish.
If they suggested you can only do one or the other, then it would be False Dilemma.
If they suggested you'd be better off reading literature because if you'd done so, you'd "be more successful" in a way, it would be Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course