The Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Whew. It's been a while since I made a thread.
Anyway. A very common (and newly-named) informal rhetorical trick I've been observing, both online and in real life, is this one right here. The motte-and-bailey fallacy (also known as the 'motte-and-bailey doctrine'). Although it is often found in arguments made by supporters of social justice, a lot of extremist ideologies also use it.
Effectively, it is bait-and-switch. Example:
Monique: All white people are racist.
Joshua: Why do you believe that, when you don't know every white person nor their beliefs?
Monique: Well, when we say "all whites are racist", what we really mean is, all whites are racially biased as a result of being brought up with certain beliefs in the context of a racialised society.
Ignore the lack of specificity in Monique's argument for a moment. Notice what she does. She asserts a controversial position (the bailey), which is desired, but hard to defend. When Joshua challenges her, she retreats to a less controversial position (the motte), which is easier to defend, but undesired. She then attempts to equate the two positions to obscure the fact that her claim was effectively stepped down.
The power of this fallacy lies in the ability to defend a less controversial, or "weaker" position, while giving the impression that a "stronger", or more controversial one, was defended instead.
Another example of bait-and-switch:
Tim: Feminism is the radical notion that women are people. If you believe that, then surely, you must be a feminist.
This is motte-and-bailey as well, but without the bailey at first - call it the 'Hidden Bailey' fallacy. Tim gives an uncontroversial position, and equates it with his ideology - feminism - which is actually more than is implied in that statement. Virtually everyone will agree that women are people, yet, other concepts in feminism - like patriarchy theory, rape culture, etc. are far more contested and may not be agreed upon by people who accept the first statement. Tim is baiting people into thinking they agree with him, only to switch to his real beliefs afterwards.
Should this be considered for entry in the next version of Logically Fallacious?
Comments on Question
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people"
This seems to be more specifically a false premise. Tim does not actually believe this fully defines feminism, neither does the person he may be arguing against. If the person was ignorant of feminism then once Tim reveals his true beliefs that person is free to leave.
This setup seems to be an argument in the form of
Tim: Feminism is the radical notion that women are people
Jim: I am not a feminist
Tim: So you don't think women are people?
Jim: Not all people who think women are people are feminists. Stop using overgeneralization
Both of Monique's statements are baileys.
Answers
2Your second case seems to me a perfect example of moving the goalposts, or no true scotsman.
The first, however, is different. The actual opinion is that White people are inherently racially biased. Saying they are "racist" is a simplification or exaggeration, hinging in defining racism as racial bias. This is debatable, but I don't see a fallacy.
In the case of the first one you'd need to define what you mean by racism; I tend to think in terms of discrimination, where you treat someone different based on phenotypical differences, in which case there is no switch but rather a clarification, while other people may describe it using words like hatred or belief in inferiority.
It does serve well enough to illustrate the fallacy though. It seems like a kind of self straw man (auto straw man?), where one switches in a position which is easier to defend.
I'm not intrinsically opposed to it as a clarification, as some people are simply not good as expressing themselves, as long as it's clear enough that the goalposts have moved. It would probably depend on how things proceeded from there, it the person is happy to continue defending the clarified position whilst also trying to leave the original one somehow still in play.
I have more of a problem with the second example which seems somewhat loaded with the premise that women aren't actually people being an established view, and that going against this is radical (unless this is simply a sarcastic rhetoric).
Also the thing here is that it's all part of the same premise, which isn't changed just because there are two sentences.
As to the naming of such a fallacy, it's more suggestive of a double fortifications rather than a switch. I'm sure that medieval armies would have much preferred turning up to an assault expecting a motte a finding a bailey, rather than finding that they have to contend with both defences.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
Thanks, I will research this and add it!