Name That Fallacy
Logic, Philosophy April 1st. 2009, 8:37pmWhat do you call it when someone attributes a common human failing – one that is universal or nearly so – to a particular group? I’m not thinking specifically of stereotypes (“Mexicans are lazy”, “white people are uptight”, “guys named Robert Hayes are amazingly handsome and witty”) which may or may not be based on observed behavior. Rather, I’m looking for something a bit more conceptually general – “Conservatives are hypocrites about their moral claims” or “Liberal politicians are dishonest and corrupt” – where the objective neutral observer notes gently that most EVERYBODY is a hypocrite about their moral claims and that pretty much all politicians are dishonest and corrupt. You could call it the “my side is full of saints and the other side is full of evil fallacy” but that is a bit wordy.
Name that fallacy and you’ll receive a plastic rocket and a pony. I swear. I’m a conservative, and we always keep our promises, unlike those lying liberals.
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I am a liberal Democrat, so feel free to take this with a grain of salt.
You’re absolutely right that both political parties have their share of hypocrites and crooks, and I’d have to be crazy to deny that. But it’s just as much of a fallacy to assume that, for instance, both political parties are equally hypocritical and corrupt. You didn’t actually do that, so good on you, but the line of reasoning you’re pursuing is often pushed to that conclusion, which doesn’t follow.
As a liberal Democrat, I believe that the Republicans are far, far worse in terms of corruption and hypocrisy. But that’s just my opinion. The point is, don’t just write off everybody.
As for actually answering your question… well, I can’t. You’re definitely on to something, and if there isn’t a particular term for this particular fallacy, there should be.
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
I may be committing another fallacy (the one about believing everything you read on the internet), however:
“We often arrive at a generalization but don’t or can’t list all the exceptions. When we reason with the generalization as if it has no exceptions, we commit the fallacy of accident. This fallacy is sometimes called the fallacy of sweeping generalization.
Example:
People should keep their promises, right? I loaned Dwayne my knife, and he said he’d return it. Now he is refusing to give it back, but I need it right now to slash up my neighbors’ families. Dwayne isn’t doing right by me.
People should keep their promises, but there are exceptions as in this case of the psychopath who wants Dwayne to keep his promise to return the knife.”
– exerpted from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
For the record, I consider myself to be a “non-conservative (depends on the exact issue)” Republican. As for the reward offered reward of a plastic pony and a four legged rocket, please forego them both and swing by my blog instead.
April 4th, 2009 at 8:01 am
That’s a good fallacy, Erelas, but it’s a general one. I’m looking for something more specific.