Question

...
Stephen A

'It's for your own good' fallacy?

I would like to ask you good people about an apparent fallacy that frequently confronts me but I don't know which specific fallacy it is.

As a teacher (in Hong Kong) I often hear of kids being put under great pressure to do unseemly amounts of useless homework and attend numerous futile extracurricular classes, and the kids wilt under a spoon-feeding, elitist education system that sets grades and exam scores in much higher store than personal development. A spate of suicides and reports of depression among kids has prompted spirited pleas from some quarters for parents to ease off a bit and let the kids take a breath, to that they can achieve better personal development and grow through enjoying unstructured time.

Some parents see the sense in this. However a hard core vanguard of 'helicopter / monster' parents persist with the overloading. When challenged by kids brave enough to stand up for themselves or other stakeholders, the argument is always the same: 'It's for your own good.'

Variations on this include arguments that boil down to 'If you don't get straight As, you won't get a job and we'll all end up living under a bridge.'

This way parents distance themselves from the burden they inflict on their offspring by making it appear like an act of charity.

I would like to know if there is a specific term for this kind of fallacy. As far as I can see, it appears to be a rhetorical tactic of invoking an unanwswerable argument, for to dispute or debate it means to argue 'against' your 'own good' or to deny the importance of having a decently paying job.
asked on Thursday, Mar 16, 2017 04:06:44 AM by Stephen A

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
0

Variations on this include arguments that boil down to 'If you don't get straight As, you won't get a job and we'll all end up living under a bridge.'



This is a classic Slippery Slope Fallacy.

As for "It's for your own good," I don't see this as a fallacy—just a claim which may or may not be supported by facts.

{date-time stamp}Saturday, Mar 18, 2017 10:42 AM{/date-time stamp}

An anonymous comment: This is so obviously just a claim which may or may not be supported by facts; that it should be filtered out upon arrival, so as not to clutter the discussion.

If it were that obvious, it wouldn't be posted to being with. Since this is an educational site, I will err on the side of "not obvious."

answered on Thursday, Mar 16, 2017 07:12:10 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments