Moral equivalence fallacy


image

Summary:

  • There are numerous speech stratagems which can be used to win an argument or influence the audience.
  • Moral equivalence (or false equivalence) is a fallacy which consists in drawing false equivalence between two things based on shared characteristics.
  • Moral equivalence arguments also take the form of whataboutism or whataboutery.

More items…

Moral equivalence is a term used in political arguments or debate. It is an informal fallacy. The phrase describes a kind of indirect proof, but the reasoning is flawed because it distorts issues.

Full
Answer

What is moral equivalence in philosophy?

Moral equivalence. Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing…

What is moral equivalence AP Human Geography?

v – t – e. Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other.

What is another word for false moral equivalence?

Moral confusion; deceptive moral comparison; mendacious moral equivalence (also see sanctimony); false analogy. The advocate seeks to draw false comparisons between two phenomena which are not morally equivalent.

What is the problem with false equivalence?

False Equivalence: The Problem with Unreasonable Comparisons False equivalence is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equivalent, simply because they share some characteristics, despite the fact that there are also notable differences between them.

image


What is meant by moral equivalence?

Moral equivalence is a term used in political debate, usually to deny that a moral comparison can be made of two sides in a conflict, or in the actions or tactics of two sides. The term had some currency in polemic debates about the Cold War, and currently the Arab–Israeli conflict.


What is the equivalence fallacy?

False equivalence is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called “comparing apples and oranges.” False Equivalence.


What is genetic fallacy examples?

The genetic fallacy arises whenever we dismiss a claim or argument because of its origin or history. 1) You cannot believe Bob’s idea because it came from his dream. 2) The psychologist says Tim believes in God because Tim lost his father at a young age. So, God doesn’t exist.


Is a false equivalence?

False equivalence is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equivalent, simply because they share some characteristics, despite the fact that there are also notable differences between them.


What is an example of false analogy fallacy?

A false analogy is a type of informal fallacy. It states that since Item A and Item B both have Quality X in common, they must also have Quality Y in common. For example, say Joan and Mary both drive pickup trucks. Since Joan is a teacher, Mary must also be a teacher. This is flawed reasoning!


What is hominem fallacy?

(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone’s argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.


Is cherry picking a fallacy?

Some scholars classify cherry-picking as a fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking can refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even completely contrary to reality.


Why is straw man a fallacy?

Straw person is the misrepresentation of an opponent’s position or a competitor’s product to tout one’s own argument or product as superior. This fallacy occurs when the weakest version of an argument is attacked while stronger ones are ignored.


What is an example of naturalistic fallacy?

The naturalistic fallacy looks like this: Breastfeeding is the natural way to feed children. Therefore, mothers ought to breastfeed their children and ought not to use baby formula (because it is unnatural).


What is the false dilemma fallacy?

Sometimes called the “either-or” fallacy, a false dilemma is a logical fallacy that presents only two options or sides when there are many options or sides. Essentially, a false dilemma presents a “black and white” kind of thinking when there are actually many shades of gray.


What is an example of a straw man argument?

For example, if someone says “I think that we should give better study guides to students”, a person using a strawman might reply by saying “I think that your idea is bad, because we shouldn’t just give out easy A’s to everyone”.


What are some examples of ad hominem?

Ad Hominem ExamplesA politician arguing that his opponent cannot possibly be a good choice for women because he has a religious conviction that causes him to be pro-life.A lawyer who argues that his client should not be held responsible for theft because he is poor.More items…


What is an example of a straw man argument?

For example, if someone says “I think that we should give better study guides to students”, a person using a strawman might reply by saying “I think that your idea is bad, because we shouldn’t just give out easy A’s to everyone”.


Why is straw man a fallacy?

Straw person is the misrepresentation of an opponent’s position or a competitor’s product to tout one’s own argument or product as superior. This fallacy occurs when the weakest version of an argument is attacked while stronger ones are ignored.


What are some examples of faulty logic?

EXAMPLE: “I loved that movie we saw last night with Brad Pitt. I am going to rent all of his movies, and I am sure I’ll like all of them.” EXPLANATION: It is an imperfect judgment (or faulty logic!) to assume that you will love all Brad Pitt movies just because you loved one!


What is fallacy and types of fallacy?

Logical fallacies are flawed, deceptive, or false arguments that can be proven wrong with reasoning. There are two main types of fallacies: A formal fallacy is an argument with a premise and conclusion that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. An informal fallacy is an error in the form, content, or context of the argument.


What is moral equivalence?

Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn’t as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy .


Who said the Contras were the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers?

Ronald Reagan claiming the Contras in Nicaragua were the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers. Note that people like Howard Zinn would agree.


Why was neither side morally superior in World War II?

Claiming neither side in World War II was morally superior because of Allied atrocities, such as the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and the firebombing of Dresden. Drawing a moral equivalence between 9/11 and U.S. policy in the Middle East, thereby attempting to justify or excuse 9/11.


What is the opposite of moral equivalence?

A moral equivalence fallacy is when you assume two things are as good or bad as another regardless of the actions either one takes. The opposite fallacy is when you assume two things are not, and therefore the good one’s actions are always good, while the other isn’t.


What is moral equivalent?

The Moral Equivalence fallacy is most often used in political debates/discussions/arguments. It is an informal fallacy that tries to claim that the actions of a given act/actor are the moral equivalent to the actions of yet another act/actor. Therefore one is just as good or bad as the other, regardless of what the actual action is. A good example of this would be two kids fighting at school. (For the purpose of this example, let us agree that the person who starts the fight and/or throws the first punch is a bad actor and the person simply defending themself is not.) In this scenario, a teach


What does “appeal to emotion” mean?

Appeal to emotion : You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.


Why was neither side in World War 2 morally superior?

Claiming neither side in World War II was morally superior because of the British firebombing of Dresden in Germany, or the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. This is despite the fact that Germany started the war in Europe and Japan started the war in the Pacific. Whilst the morality of the British fire bombing of Dresden is questionable, the aim of the US atomic bombings was to force Japan to surrender, without the necessity of a land invasion in which millions of people were expected to die on both sides. The purpose was to end World War II as opposed to starting it.


Who said you misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack?

Strawman : You misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.


Is morality special?

For some reason, people have become convinced that morality is somehow special. But it’s not. It’s a rational/evaluative faculty like all similar human faculties. It is useful for us and passes objective tests that measure its accuracy and value just as color vision does.


Is Islam morally equivalent to Christianity?

A moral equivalence fallacy would instead go; Christianity and Islam are equally moral, despite what actions either one takes. A person burns a suspected witch in the name of Jesus, while another gives charity in the name of Allah….they are still morally equivalent because they both are doing what they believe to be right.


What is moral equivalence?

Moral equivalence is a term used in political debate, usually to deny that a moral comparison can be made of two sides in a conflict, or in the actions or tactics of two sides. The term had some currency in polemic debates about the Cold War, and currently the Arab–Israeli conflict.


Who was the first person to say there was no moral difference between the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union?

An early popularizer of the expression was Jeane Kirkpatrick, the US ambassador to the United Nations during the Reagan administration. Kirkpatrick published the article “The Myth of Moral Equivalence” in 1986, which sharply criticized those who she alleged were claiming that there was “no moral difference” between the Soviet Union and democratic states. In fact, very few critics of US policies during the Cold War argued that there was a moral equivalence between the two sides. Communists, for instance, argued that the Soviet Union was morally superior to its adversaries. Kirkpatrick herself was one of the most outspoken voices calling for the US to support authoritarian military regimes in Central America that were responsible for major human rights violations. When four US churchwomen were raped and murdered by government soldiers in El Salvador, Kirkpatrick downplayed the gravity of the crime and claimed that “the nuns were not just nuns, they were political activists.” According to Congressman Robert Torricelli, Reagan administration officials, including Kirkpatrick, deliberately suppressed information about government abuses in El Salvador: “While the Reagan Administration was certifying human rights progress in El Salvador they knew the terrible truth that the Salvadoran military was engaged in a widespread campaign of terror and torture.”


Do both sides need to negotiate a ceasefire?

International conflicts are sometimes viewed similarly, and interested parties periodically urge both sides to conduct a ceasefire and negotiate their differences. However these negotiations may prove difficult in that both parties in a conflict believe that they are morally superior to the other, and are unwilling to negotiate on basis of moral equivalence.


What is the fallacy of moral equivalence?

The fallacy of moral equivalence is a strategy often used to denigrate an agency or entity by implying or stating that its policies or practices are as reprehensible as a widely (and justifiably) despised agency or entity.


What should be addressed in the habit of claiming baseless equivalence?

It should be pointed out that those who are in the habit of claiming baseless equivalence are not primarily interested in solving problems or addressing issues – they are interested in winning an argument through the use of shallow rhetorical devices.


What is logical fallacy?

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument.


How to make a fair and reasonable evaluation?

To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend not one but several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.


What is a hasty generalization?

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:


What is the fallacy of two things being equal?

False equivalence is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equivalent, simply because they share some characteristics, despite the fact that there are also notable differences between them.


What are some examples of false equivalences?

A simple example of a false equivalence is saying that a knife and dynamite are both tools that can be used as weapons, so they’re pretty much the same thing , and therefore if we allow people to buy knives at the store, then we should also allow them to also buy dynamite.


Why are false equivalences used?

Because false equivalences are so widely used, it’s important to understand them. As such, in the following article you will learn more about …


What is the fallacy of false balance?

False balance is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone suggests that , if there are two or more opposing positions on a certain topic, then the truth must rest somewhere in the middle between them.


Why should you explain the equivalence in question?

If necessary, you should explicitly explain why you believe that the equivalence in question is reasonable. This will help you ensure that your equivalence is indeed reasonable, and help you demonstrate this to the people that you’re talking to.


What is equivalence in psychology?

The equivalence exaggerates the degree of similarity between the things being equated. For example, this could involve stating that two people share a certain personality trait, while ignoring the fact that they only share certain aspects of this trait but not others.


How to avoid false equivalences?

To avoid using false equivalences, you should make sure that whenever you equate two or more things with one another, you have proper justification as to why the things in question are equivalent, based on relevant criteria.

image


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *