Accused of a fallacy? Suspect a fallacy? Ask Dr. Bo and the community!

Quickly register to comment, ask and respond to questions, and get FREE access to our passive online course on cognitive biases!

one moment please...

Rights To Ought Fallacy

(also known as: constitutional rights fallacy)

Description: When one gives a reason for one's rights (constitutional or other) with what one should do.  This is common among staunch defenders of "rights" who fail to see that rights are not the same as optimal courses of action.  It can be a way of attempting to hide the fact that the "should" is based on one's subjective moral values (or at least values that are not shared by the opponent) rather than a more objective law to which virtually everyone acknowledges.

Logical Form:

Person A should not have done X.

Person A had every right to do X; therefore, person A should have done X.

Example #1:

Carl: Hi Billy, it is great to meet you! I think you will be happy here at Friendly Manufacturing, Inc.

Billy: Hey, you're Irish!  Irish people make great factory workers—that is where they are happiest.  I am surprised to see you in management. 

Carl: Excuse me??

Billy: Don't mind me.  I am just expressing my constitutional right to freedom of speech.  Do you have a problem with our Constitution?  Do you hate America?

Explanation: Billy is clearly ignorant when it comes to the realities of cultural differences, and he seriously lacks social skills.  He is correct that he has every right to express his opinions, but he does not seem to mind offending and hurting others by making his opinions known.  Constitutional rights do not exist in a vacuum—they are part of the larger system that includes social conventions such as tact, appropriate behavior, and kindness.

Example #2:

A top reality TV superstar from the hit show "Goose Galaxy" recently did an interview with GM magazine (Geese Monthly).  In this interview, he told the interviewer that, according to his beliefs, the Galactic Emperor has decreed that all MAC users are "sinful" and MAC use leads to having sex with computers.  When many MAC users and non-MAC users alike expressed their outrage at what they felt was an offensive and demonstrably false proposition, defenders of "Goose Galaxy" screamed that the TV superstar had every right to say those things as his speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Explanation: The claim made was that the comments were offensive and demonstrably false (as no research has been able to demonstrate that MAC use leads to having sex with computers), and the reality TV star should not have said those things, yet the "Goose Galaxy" supporters countered with the fact that the reality TV star had the right to say those things; therefore, he should have.  Notice that no claim was made about rights—this is a strawman.  The fallacy extends beyond the strawman because the defenders of "Goose Galaxy" are conflating the reality TV star's constitutional rights with the claim that he should have said those things.

Exception: When one's values are in line with the rights, then claiming one "should" exercise his or her rights is not fallacious—as long as the reason given does not have to do with rights:

I feel that it is morally wrong to use a MAC; therefore, I should speak out against MAC users; and yes, it is my constitutional right to do so.


This is an original logical fallacy named by the author.

Registered User Comments

Saturday, August 04, 2018 - 09:03:17 AM
How do you respond to people who say: you don't have the right to not be offended. If you think that a person is wrong/ignorant/arrogant for saying something outlandish, just expose that person with valid arguments and don't cry for getting your feelings hurt.

login to reply
1 reply
0 votes
Reply To Comment

Bo Bennett, PhD
Saturday, August 04, 2018 - 09:11:23 AM
I think this is more of a preference/opinion than anything related to logic or reason. Many things people take offense to don't have an argument behind them. For example, if an atheist gets offended because she sneezed and someone responded "God bless you!" there is really no argument that would prove her "right"—she simply is offended.

If someone claims they DO have the right not to be offended, then they are simply incorrect. If someone offends others purposely, they might not be unreasonable or illogical, but they may be an asshole.

login to reply
0 votes
Reply To Comment

Become a Logical Fallacy Master. Choose Your Poison.

Logically Fallacious is one of the most comprehensive collections of logical fallacies with all original examples and easy to understand descriptions; perfect for educators, debaters, or anyone who wants to improve his or her reasoning skills.

Get the book, Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett, PhD by selecting one of the following options:

Not Much of a Reader? No Problem!

Enroll in the Mastering Logical Fallacies Online Course. Over 10 hours of video and interactive learning. Go beyond the book!

Enroll in the Fallacy-A-Day Passive Course. Sit back and learn fallacies the easy way—in just a few minutes per day, via e-mail delivery.

Have a podcast or know someone who does? Putting on a conference? Dr. Bennett is available for interviews and public speaking events. Contact him directly here.

About Archieboy Holdings, LLC. Privacy Policy Other Books Written by Bo
 Website Software Copyright 2019, Archieboy Holdings, LLC.