To call an argument illogical, or a proposition false, is a special kind of moral judgment.
C.S. Peirce
This fallacy is also known as begging the question. From the Latin, petitio principii is translated as “appealing to the first principles.” Petitio principii uses part of its conclusion in its own premise as support. This is a type of circular reasoning. Often this fallacy occurs when one uses two different words—one in the premises and one in the conclusion—which share the same definition. For example:
1. Abortion is wrong because abortion is unethical.
In this example, the conclusion (abortion is wrong) is supported by the premise (abortion is unethical). However, this argument begs the question because an act that is unethical, by definition, is an act that is wrong. Consider these examples:
2. I know that Gene and Susan slept together because I know that they had sex.
3. Your honor, the defendant should be held responsible for stealing my client’s purse because he took something that did not belong to him.
4. The Bible is true because it contains no falsehoods.
5. Jan: Why did you decide to become a vegetarian, Anthony?
Anthony: Because I don’t eat meat.
In these examples the conclusions are simply different versions of the premises. The conclusion should be established and supported by the premises; it should not simply be a restatement or variation of them.
The complex question is not an argument; it is a particular type of question. More specifically, it is a loaded question; i.e., a question with a built-in assumption. The complex question can often throw off the listener by forcing him or her to answer a flawed question. For example:
1. Lawyer to defendant: Where did you hide the murder weapon?
This example assumes that the defendant knows where the weapon is. If the defendant answers that he did not hide the murder weapon, then the judge and the jury might assume that he did have the weapon in his possession at some time. (In legal terms this is referred to as leading the witness.) The only way around this question is for the defendant to call to attention that the question is loaded.
Consider these examples:
2. When did you stop beating your wife?
3. When are you going to have children?
In example 2, the assumption is made that the person questioned did beat his wife. In example 3, the question assumes that the individual has decided to have children. The best response to these types of questions is not simply to answer the question as it has been posed. Rather, one should bring to light that the question has built-in assumptions, lest one fall into the trap set by the questioner. Consider the built-in assumptions in the following examples.
4. How many drinks have you had tonight?
5. Just how much did you enjoy the movie?
We must be careful to avoid asking loaded questions, and we must work to create straightforward, clear dialogue.
This fallacy is an error in reasoning that appeals to “human nature” without clearly defining it. More specifically, it occurs when one uses this vague notion as justification for a particular human action. For example:
1. Well of course people worship celebrities—it’s just our nature to worship them!
2. Defendant: Your honor, it’s a dog-eat-dog world out there and I was doing what human nature is best at—defending and protecting myself! How can you hold someone responsible for his nature?
3. Humans by their very nature are political animals. Thus, it is clear that all individuals should participate in the political process.
It is important to remember that the appeal to human nature is often used as an excuse for certain behavior. The argument usually claims that one should not be held responsible because an action was simply in his or her “nature.” One problem with this kind of appeal is that the notion of human nature itself is unclear. Many people speak of the nature of human beings, but on closer inspection it is difficult to specifically and clearly state what this means and what specific actions fall into this category. Furthermore, even if we were able to arrive at a universal definition, it would not necessarily mean that human nature could be used as a license for any type of behavior.
This fallacy occurs when an argument uses a purely descriptive statement (an “is” statement) as a premise, and moves to a prescriptive statement (an “ought” statement) as its conclusion. The words “is” and “ought” do not necessarily need to be in the argument for the is-ought fallacy to occur. There will, however, always be a description followed by a prescription. The is-ought fallacy has the following form:
Premise: Descriptive statement (“is”).
Conclusion: Prescriptive statement (“ought”).
Here are some examples:
1. Humans have carnivorous teeth. Therefore, you should eat meat.
2. It is on sale. Therefore you should buy it!
3. The Holy Scriptures say x. So, you should believe x.
As we can see from these examples, the is-ought fallacy usually is found when someone is trying to convince another person to act a certain way. However, we cannot assume that we can determine how things ought to be, just because we know how things are. To do so is flawed reasoning, because a prescriptive suggestion or command cannot be derived solely from a descriptive statement or observation. In other words, just because we have the facts, this does not necessarily mean we always know how others—or ourselves for that matter—should behave because of these facts.
It should be noted that this fallacy, unlike others, is debated by many philosophers. Some intellectuals, like John Searle at U.C. Berkeley, maintain the is-ought fallacy is not truly a fallacy, but a coherent and valid form of reasoning.1 I will leave it to the reader to decide whether he or she believes the is-ought fallacy is indeed a fallacy or not.
The fallacy of projection occurs when one “projects” personal feelings, beliefs, or attitudes onto another person without evidence to support this assumption. This is similar to the concept of projection found in certain psychological theories. Sigmund Freud believed that individuals often project unconscious desires and fears onto the external world. The fallacy of projection is different in that it is more generally applied to lazy assumptions that we all sometimes make about others. Projection can easily be described as assuming others’ experiences of reality and/or conclusions concerning reality are the same as one’s own. For example:
1. Of course Sharon will agree with us. She witnessed 9-11 also. Therefore, I am sure she will confirm our decision to go to war.
2. How can you possibly eat more than one piece of pizza? One piece always fills me up.
3. Jonathan is late to work again this morning. I am only late to work when I party the night before. Jonathan must have had a great time partying last night!
4. I can see God’s handiwork clearly in nature. Anyone who looks at creation will surely come to the same conclusion.
In all of these examples one projects onto others one’s personal beliefs, which have been derived from his or her individual experience. The problem with this type of reasoning is that individuals have different understandings of events, food, other people, nature, and of almost everything else in life. This does not mean that others’ interpretations will always be different than one’s own. In fact, many people share very similar experiences and interpretations. But, the key point to remember about the fallacy of projection is this: simply because one has arrived at a certain conclusion, it does not follow that others will make the same judgment.
In Ancient Greek mythology Narcissus was a young man who was in love with his own image. Narcissism usually refers to a type of behavior that is egotistical or vain. The narcissist fallacy occurs when one assumes that others are thinking about him or her. This is similar to the fallacy of projection, where one projects one’s beliefs, values, or feelings onto others. The key difference between these two fallacies, however, is that you commit the narcissist fallacy when you make the false assumption that people notice you, care about you, or are thinking about you. Consider these examples:
1. He smiled when I walked by. He must think these new jeans look really good on me.
2. My neighbor doesn’t talk to me anymore. It’s probably because he’s jealous of my new car.
3. I’ll go ahead and pull onto the freeway. Other cars will see me and let me in.
4. Today the mailman was rude to me and so was the toll booth attendant. I can’t believe that people have been treating me so poorly on my birthday!
In each of these examples an assumption is made about others and their motivations and concerns. If we are honest with ourselves, we know that those who we encounter in everyday life are not necessarily thinking about us, even when they treat us in a certain manner. Other people have their own personal preoccupations—financial, marital, political, medical, spiritual, etc.—which often do not include us.
This fallacy gets its name from two Greek words: anthropos, meaning human, and morphe, meaning form. This fallacy occurs when one assumes that a non-human being or thing has the same characteristics as a human. Often this involves a projection of human emotions or behavior onto something non-human. For example:
1. Because of our lack of respect for nature, the earth has become angry with us humans.
2. As I look at the magnificent California redwoods, I feel them calling my name and extending their love to me.
3. When my pet snake Pepper smiles at me, I know she’s satisfied.
4. I wish I had a better relationship with my computer. It keeps getting mad at me and freezing up!
In these examples, human emotions or attributes are assumed to be part of the non-human world. We must be honest with ourselves and try not to engage in projection of this sort. When we allow ourselves to make unfounded assumptions about nature and non-human creatures, we are reasoning with inauthenticity, laziness, and presumption. May our reasoning, instead, be built with the principles of critical thinking, which will help us avoid anthropomorphism and other fallacies.
Today it is quite common to hear the phrase, “That may be true for you, but it is not true for me.” This is the quintessential subjectivist fallacy. This fallacy is called the subjectivist fallacy because many who use this erroneous type of argument mistakenly believe that all truth ultimately depends on the subject or the individual. This fallacy rests on a misunderstanding of what constitutes truth, confusing or conflating truth with belief.
It is critical that we distinguish between belief and truth. If something is true, then it describes accurately the way things are. As philosopher J.L. Mackie explains: “If we do take statements to be the primary bearers of truth, there seems to be a very simple answer to the question, what is it for them to be true: for a statement to be true is for things to be as they are stated to be.”2
In contrast to truth, a belief is an opinion or conviction about something. A belief can be true or false. For example, if a person believes that 2 + 2 = 7, then he or she believes a falsehood, not a truth. Simply because one believes something, this does not make their belief accurate.
Also it is important to distinguish between truth and taste or preference. Someone might prefer Nietzsche’s writings to Plato’s. This is merely a matter of preference, not of truth. Or, someone might like the taste of tea over coffee. Again, this is simply one’s taste; this is not an issue of truth or falsehood.
The subjectivist fallacy is quite commonly used as a mechanism for avoiding taking seriously the views and opinions of others. As critical thinkers, we should not take this easy method of escape. The beliefs and arguments of others should be considered in a serious and analytical manner, and they should be viewed from a standpoint that understands the vital difference between truth and belief.
1. Searle, John. “How to Derive ‘Ought’ from ‘Is,’ ” in Philosophical Review, 1964. 73: 43-58.
2. Mackie, J.L. Truth, Probability and Paradox: Studies in Philosophical Logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. p. 22.