“Trump Defense” & Appeal To Authority
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Regarding the storming of the Capitol January 6th, among those arrested many of their attorneys have developed the “Trump Defense”, which states that their criminal acts were actually at the invitation of then-President Trump and so their clients are not responsible for their actions that onerous day.
Is this argument a fallacious “Appeal To Authority” since the accused at any point had the choice to join the invading mob or not? The majority of protesters there remained outside the building exercising their choice to not proceed inside.
Or is this a purely legal issue since Trump did incite the crowd to go to the Capitol Building and “Stop The Steal” and as such their actions were justified by a call from real authority?
Or is it both? Thoughts?
Comments on Question
Is this really a question or to be considered as constructed just to be entertained?
When it was the people that entered the So-called House of the People are ever trespassing?
Like so many Americans sleeping on the public street and public parks or publuc bus benches because of the their public constuction; not to be all a person needs to reast on them latterally so uncomfortably in as a free representing Our Republic decomcracy that we have the hind from the world; except to ourselves looking into a mirror?
A philosopher could probably have a heyday with the Free Will/Determinism aspect here, too.
Answers
4I never heard your statement: ... among those arrested many of their attorneys have developed the “Trump Defense”, which states that their criminal acts were actually at the invitation of then-President Trump, and so their clients are not responsible for their actions that onerous day.
This is a legal question, not a logical question. In short, the law is a person is accountable for his actions, and a direct order, not to mention a mere “invitation,” will not excuse or justify such action. I doubt any lawyer would propose this as a defense.
At least to me, your next statement demonstrates your political position more than raising a logical question.
However, your claim “since Trump did incite the crowd...” This is classic Fallacy of Equivocation because you use a misleading term (in this case the word “incite”) with more than one meaning. This fallacy usually accompanies the glossing over which meaning is intended in the discussion.
This, and a bit more, leads me to conclude you are tolling for a discussion on an issue other than logical.
I would say this is purely a legal issue. It wouldn't be an appeal to authority because it is referring to an action taken rather than a claim being made. I wouldn't say they are claiming that Trump is a "valid authority on the issue" either, rather that Trump is their leader giving orders (e.g., a drill sergeant telling a private to do 50 pushups, isn't necessarily an authority on push ups.) I can see how one can make an argument for the appeal to authority, but in my opinion, this situation just doesn't fit.
Appeal to What Authority?
We don't live in a democracy but a representative republic!
Robert
I am not a US citizen, so I only know about this event based on what you said in your question. Given that it was not pointed out that Trump is a valid authority that advocated that event, but rather that he, as the ruler, was behind it, I would not say that it was appeal to authority . This is a purely legal issue.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
On the fallacy, the etymology of “verecundiam” is interesting here. The word suggests shame (also awe, coyness, modesty). Thus, I have thought about this fallacy as an attempt to shame your opponent into accepting your argument using the awesomeness of a title, position, reputation, etc. You are supposed to be cowed into proper modesty when the authority’s credentials are raised. Like many fallacies, it is an attempt to use emotion to win an argument. Who are YOU to argue X when Y has been argued by [authority], someone much more credentialed than you?
We see this all the time now with appeal to scientific authority. If you are foolish enough to have a debate about COVID on social media, you will get hit with this argument repeatedly. Dr. Fauci says you’re wrong. Dr. Atlas says your wrong. Who are you to argue? Are you an epidemiologist? Where did you go to medical school?
In the case of President Trump and the Capitol riot, then, this fallacy would more apply in the following way (an argument I have heard): “You say the election wasn’t stolen. But the president of the United States, the leader of the free world, who has access to way more information than you or me, says it was. Who should we believe? What do you know about our election security, anyway?”
Or in reverse: “The head of the department of intelligence says this was the most secure election in US history. Don’t you want to shut up now about the possibility voting machines were hacked?”
These arguments may be supportable, but the intent is to get you to feel shame, modesty, coyness — and to cease logical thinking of the sort that might lead you to realize that four years ago, the president was a reality TV star who loved conspiracy theories. Or: The heads of intelligence agencies are the same guys who said Saddam Hussein definitely had weapons of mass destruction and who went on TV and claimed President Trump was compromised by Russia. (Of course, my argument could be construed as an ad verecundiam in reverse. What’s that called? An appeal to reject all authority?)
As to the legal argument and issue you raised, the defense goes beyond “invitation” to suggest that because Trump was the president, his comments that day constituted an order to commit insurrection. In other words, it’s the old “we were just following orders” gambit. Here Alan Dershowitz has made a great point that isn’t obvious at first. The president of the United States is NOT the commander in chief. He’s the commander in chief of the ARMED FORCES. Unless the people in that crowd were on-duty military, his order (whether implied or explicit) means nothing. The president cannot order a civilian to do anything!