What is called the opposite of Double Standard?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I was watching Survivor. An incident with the supplies occurred and the first team agreed that they treated the second team unfair and that they should return a part of their supplies (exactly 29 spoons of rice) but they actually returned only 13. The other team counted the spoons and realized that the portions were missing. So the team which was treated unfair, raised that as an issue.
Coincidentally that team won the game and said that they won the game because they had more passion and soul than the other team, to get a reply from the other team (the one who mistreated them):
"Those who count spoons of rice cannot talk about soul and passion"
So, not only they were treated unfairly, but they were accused of being petty (for checking whether they were tricked or not - and indeed they were).
"Those who count spoons of rice cannot talk about soul and passion" is something that could be said in a situation where a spoon of rice is insignificant, but not when it's a life or death situation.
So, my question is: Is there a name for ignoring the conditions and using something like a cliche i.e something that in general would be true but not for the specific situation? Minding also, that the one who is saying that is talking to an audience (the viewers) who most probably have never been in a situation where all you have to eat is two spoons of rice per day, and perhaps they don't have the mental capacity to filter that.
It's definitely fallacious tactic and I think it's like the opposite of double standard. Is there a name for it?
Answers
4Hmmm, it's a tough one. I don't really see a double standard fallacy as much as a disagreement of terminology, and its moral implications.
Person X: We survived and won because we were passionately soulful about our survival in spite of being cheated.
Person Y: What passion and soul? You were too busy counting spoons.
Person X: Yes, our passion and soulfulness shaped our fierce practicality and determination.
Person Y: Passion and soul have nothing to do with that kind of exactitude.
Person X: Who says?
Person Y appears to be claiming that one cannot be practical while also being passionate and soulful. This seems more like a Moralistic fallacy, or a false dilemma.
Person X attributes the win to an emotional appeal to passion and soul. When you consider the fact his team won in spite of being cheated it does not seem to be an unreasonable claim. A lofty one for sure, but not entirely illogical.
Certainly one can argue the impact of passion and soul on practicality, but it's not so much a double standard as it is a fundamental disagreement of morality.
"Is there a name for ignoring the conditions and using something like a cliche i.e something that in general would be true but not for the specific situation?"
The fallacy would depend more on the specific context, however, such phrases are called 'thought-terminating clichés'. They're overly-generic, 'feel-good' phrases that generally don't respond well to reason because they ignore specific circumstances in order to manipulate the emotions - by motivating someone, shaming them (for bringing up an uncomfortable truth), discouraging them from doing something.
I would say it is an accident fallacy in your example. I don't think it is "the opposite" of double standard because "the opposite" of accident fallacy is the fallacy of converse accident. The opposite of double standard would be some identification of two situations that differ from each other, and scoring from them in the same context. Something like this occurs in various types of logical errors, and I don't know if it has a unique, collective name.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course