|
|
Is this a fallacy if so, what is it called?I recently saw an argument structured like this. "If you don't believe in X, don't do X." In that instance, it was used to say "If you don't believe in abortions, don't have an abortion." Regardless of my opinion, this reeks of fallacy to me. If you do not believe in something on a moral level, you obviously believe that should apply to all of society. If you substitute in murder for abortion (which some people see as analogous), the argument becomes "if you don't believe in murder, don't commit murder", which is ridiculous on its face. Therefore, my question is, is this a fallacy, and if so, what is it called?
|
| asked on Sunday, Oct 27, 2019 03:47:56 AM by Jacob Barnas | |
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."
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.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
It is fallacious. Before we get into why, this line of reasoning does make more sense in any context where nobody is being hurt--a victimless crime. The best example is gay marriage. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry someone of your same gender. Some pro-choice advocates will reject the claim that in abortion there is a victim. At one extreme, the "victim" is a cluster of cells whereas at the other extreme the victim can be a fully-formed baby capable of living outside the womb (as in late-term abortions). Also, some pro-life advocates might hold a religious view that at the moment of conception there is a "soul" and therefore a victim. So with abortion, this argument is questionable and debatable.
Ultimately, in any context, we are dealing with the fallacy of equivocation . When someone claims that they don't "believe in" abortion or even gay marriage, "believe in" refers to a moral position whereas in the argument it is meant to mean a preference , as in "I prefer vanilla to strawberry." If one prefers, vanilla, then they should not order strawberry--makes perfect sense. If one prefers vanilla, it would be ridiculous for them to demand that nobody should order strawberry. |
| answered on Sunday, Oct 27, 2019 06:38:00 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
If you do not believe in something on a moral level, you obviously believe that should apply to all of society. Is that true? Because that sounds like a hasty generalization to me. I know of many folks (Vegans, Celibates, penitents, etc.) who believe things for themselves, but would never dream of imposing that belief on others. |
| answered on Sunday, Oct 27, 2019 10:52:53 AM by mchasewalker |
Comments |
|
| |