Quickly register to comment, Ask questions, and/or keep up to date on new fallacies.

one moment please...

Accident Fallacy

  Get the Book!

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

Get It!

a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid

(also known as: destroying the exception, dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, dicto simpliciter, converse accident, reverse accident, fallacy of the general rule, sweeping generalization)

Description: When an attempt is made to apply a general rule to all situations, when clearly there are exceptions to the rule. Simplistic rules or laws rarely take into consideration legitimate exceptions, and to ignore these exceptions is to bypass reason to preserve the illusion of a perfect law.  People like simplicity and would often rather keep simplicity at the cost of rationality.

Logical Form:

X is a common and accepted rule.

Therefore, there are no exceptions to X.

Example #1:

I believe one should never deliberately hurt another person, that’s why I can never be a surgeon.

Explanation: Classifying surgery under “hurting” someone, is to ignore the obvious benefits that go with surgery.  These kinds of extreme views are rarely built on reason.

Example #2:

The Bible clearly says, “thou shall not bear false witness”, therefore, as a Christian, you better answer the door and tell our drunk neighbor with the shotgun, that his wife, whom he is looking to kill, is hiding in our basement, otherwise you are defying God himself!

Explanation: To assume any law, even divine, applies to every person, in every time, in every situation, even though not explicitly stated, is an assumption not grounded in evidence, and fallacious reasoning.

Exception: Stating the general rule when a good argument can be made that the action in question is a violation of the rule, would not be considered fallacious.

The Bible says, “thou shall not murder”, therefore, as a Christian, you better put that chainsaw down and untie that little kid.

Tip: It is your right to question laws you don’t understand or laws with which you don’t agree. 

Registered User Comments

Saturday, December 17, 2016 - 02:21:09 PM
Example 2 isn't even remotely a correct example of what thou shalt not bear false witness entails. If a neighbor asks you a question or makes an assertion in which there is a truthful answer the commandment is not violated if an individual decides to not answer the question in the affirmative or a denial. This seems to be fallacious reasoning by implying the commandment only has two choices a person can make, that's a false dichotomy. Not answering or telling the neighbor "it is none of their business" or etc is also a viable response that is involved. You imply "thou shalt answer everything your neighbor asks you" is included in the definition of the commandment. It is not.

login to reply
1 reply
0 votes


Bo Bennett, PhD
Saturday, December 17, 2016 - 02:28:37 PM
Example 2 isn't even remotely a correct example of what thou shalt not bear false witness entails.
If this were Sunday school, you would have a good basis for an argument. However, the fictional characters in my fictional examples only need to make claims—they are often fallacious... thus the point of the example. Again, "I" don't imply anything... the character in the example is the one doing all the implying.

login to reply
0 votes


 Copyright 2017, Archieboy Holdings, LLC.