Logical Fallacies Series Part 17
Hey there! I want to talk to again you about logical fallacies! There are oh so many and I'd like to go over them. We are now on to part 17 of my series on here. In this series, we are only covering the actual fallacies and what they are, not the application of them or anything outside of the basics.
Remember for your argument to be logical, THOU MUST NOT COMMIT LOGICAL FALLACIES! Instead of just pointlessly copying and pasting, I will describe these in my own words for you, if that isn't your thing, check out the bottom for references. Otherwise, kindly read on…
https://media.giphy.com/media/l0MYEwUrE0ei2BAGc/giphy.gifMoral Superiority
This is the fallacy of deeming your claims, values, position is morally superior to the opposition which would then be justified to be completely defeated. When positioning oneself as morally superior the opposition must be immoral in the sense of the good eradicating the evil. This is an old fallacy form the middle ages that is oddly coming back into modern politics. This is seen with the "punch a Nazi" rhetoric where people can falsely accuse people in order to justify any actions towards them.
Mortification
This is an old fallacy of pleasure hating and believing that the endurance of pain is beneficial. This is very rarely seen in modern debate but is occasionally tossed around with the saying "no pain, no gain" trying to make the claim that. Traditionally it's referred to subduing bodily desires. The opposite of this would be closely related to Hedonism.
Moving the Goalposts
In this fallacy, someone who is demanding proof, or a certain degree of support to determine the result claims that more proof or support is needed after their original claims had been met. The point here is to ensure the opposition loses by always denying them the win. This is seen a lot in modern debate but can also be falsely claimed a lot too. For example, say you offer up the compromise that if a vote is tied, you will concede the victory to the other person, but when it does tie you claim that given it was not the majority you cannot give them the win and essentially moves the range in which they were able to win. This is not the same as in a debate when someone makes a point about something and you win against them on that point and claim you've won the entire debate, but it was only one small point, so when they continue to debate and the other person claims they are now moving the goal posts by not giving them the win addressing other arguments or presenting other evidence.
Mind Your Own Business
This is the fallacy of restricting or ending discussion of a claim or type of behavior based on an illegitimate or fake sense of privacy. This is seen fairly often today when people shut down rational questions and discussion because they believe falsely or truly that it is not within the other's right to address it. Typically it is a false belief in order to avoid consequence. "So what if I'm going to drive home drunk, it's not your business." There are many examples of this and it can go both ways.
Nobody Will Ever Know
This fallacy is the opposite of mind your own business. In this fallacy someone will claim that because no one is watching or will find out about what is happening that one is then free to exhibit evil, immoral, and harmful actions free from punishment or consequence.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/eLudircQfgGEU/giphy.gif Check out these 2 resources I like to use and often refer to:
http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
If you love philosophy as much as I do, feel free to give me a thumbs up and share your thoughts.
If you want to make sure people aren't committing logical fallacies be sure to REMIND them!
Check Out The Previous Logical Fallacies Series Part 17
Check out all my social platforms and relevant links
You can support me via:
ETH: 0xE0d930a0aa8e57e037D749a868ade5682a34e88e
BTC: 3MWhAo2pbrKLmhkRGj8WuTo2VzLVeuimTs
LTC: MJMYVTL5iL9GvyQJcn7w7uiyUFMuSFDHke