Common Mistakes (Draft in Progress)
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc - The mistake of thinking that because something happens before something else it must have CAUSED that thing. "There was an increase in diagnoses of autism around the same time that they began putting preservatives made with mercury in vaccines. Therefore these vaccines caused autism."
- Argumentum ad hominem - The mistake of confusing the person with the argument. "Jim's argument about abortion is wrong because he is a man."
- Slippery Slope - The mistake of thinking that if someone agrees with one thing then they almost agree with another thing. "If you support gay marriage now you will soon be supporting polygamy and bestiality."
- Begging the Question - The mistake of assuming the thing you are attempting to argue for. "Killing babies is wrong, whether they are born yet or not."
- Argumentum ad affectum - The mistake of thinking that something is right or wrong because someone feels emotionally close to the situation being considered. "Look... Erik is right about pulling the plug on Marlisee, after all he IS her husband."
- Red Herring. A fallacy involving irrelevant conclusions. "I shouldn't pay my taxes because a lot of other people don't pay theirs."
- Hasty Generalization - The mistake of coming to a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. "Prof. Marenco should not drive blue Volkswagen Beetles because the only two auto accidents he has been in while driving were in blue Volkswagen Beetles."
- Argumentum ad Inexorabilum - The argument from inevitability. Sometimes instead of thinking things through we just give up and say, "look its going to happen whether you like it or not so you might as well like it..." The fallacy comes in when we actually - usually halfheartedly - come up with reasons in favor of the thing we think is inexorably coming our way... like television or smartphones.
- Argument from Regulation - Instead of making a moral argument we might simply think in terms of who should decide what to do or who has the standing to make the call, as it were. A moral argument is always concerned with WHAT is being argued for, not WHO should be making the decisions. When we say, "Who's to say..." we might be confusing ethics and regulation questions.
- Strawman - This is when we create a caricature of our opponent and then knock the straw out of him, all the while not taking seriously the real arguments at stake.
- Argumentum ad miserium - The idea that avoidance of suffering is itself a moral good. We may might make the claim that we don't want an infant to suffer the pain of a genetic disorder, when in reality we simply don't want to suffer being involved in that tragic life drama. What this neglects is what I call the paradox of suffering. Suffering is something we want to avoid yet everything we value most seems to have come to us through suffering.
- Argumentum ad fastidium - This is the formal term for what we've discussed with respect to the role of psychological aversions (like my irrational hatred of bell peppers) in moral reasoning. We've also described this as the "yuck argument." However strong our emotional reactions might be to any case we discuss, those reactions must be tested through careful and thoughtful MORAL reasoning. Disgust is not a moral argument.