News and Articles

Definition

The moralistic fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone asserts that what is moral or the way things should be is in fact how they naturally are, and that anything deemed “immoral” is “unnatural”. This fallacy can take several forms:

• Assuming Impossibility: It often manifests as the assumption that if something were true, it would lead to socially unpleasant consequences, thus concluding that the thing cannot be true. The typical form of this argument is “if X were true, then Z would happen! Thus, X is false”, where Z is a morally, socially, or politically undesirable outcome.
• Reverse Is/Ought Fallacy: It can also be seen as the reverse of the is/ought fallacy. While the is/ought fallacy reasons that because things are a certain way, they ought to be that way, the moralistic fallacy reasons that because something should or ought to be a particular way, it must naturally be that way.
• Moral Judgments vs Factual Judgments: The moralistic fallacy can also occur when someone asserts that moral judgments are of a different order from factual judgments. This fallacy may take two forms: one where ethical judgments are seen as separate from factual judgments, and another where they are not.
• Inverse of Naturalistic Fallacy: Some consider the moralistic fallacy to be the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy is the belief that what is natural is morally right. For example, if it’s natural for animals to fight in the wild, some might argue that it’s morally acceptable for humans to do the same.

In essence, the moralistic fallacy involves making assumptions about morality and the way things exist, often leading to flawed reasoning and conclusions.

The “No True Scotsman” fallacy, is a form of informal logical fallacy that arises when one tries to defend a generalization by excluding counterexamples. This defense mechanism is enacted by redefining terms in order to make an argument valid, thus protecting sweeping generalizations from being proven false

The No True Scotsman logical fallacy, also known as the appeal to purity, is a form of informal fallacy that arises when someone tries to defend a universal claim by excluding counterexamples as not being “true” or “pure” enough. This defense mechanism is enacted by redefining terms in order to make an argument valid, rather than acknowledging and addressing the evidence that contradicts the generalization, thus protecting sweeping generalizations from being proven false.

Definition

Let’s start from the start.

Need to distinguish two close but different concepts.

Conspiracy theory - an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy.

The Conspiracy theory logical fallacy arises when individuals use resoning “Something is true because some hidden powers/organisations/overnments/corporations” are interested in this.

Definition

Reductio ad Absurdum: A Logical Fallacy of Reducing an Argument to Absurdity

Reductio ad absurdum is a type of logical fallacy where an argument is disproven or discredited by showing that its conclusion leads to an absurd, ridiculous, or impractical outcome. This fallacy involves taking an opponent’s argument to its extreme and illogical conclusions, thereby exposing its flaws.

Origins and Usage

The term “reductio ad absurdum” comes from Latin, meaning “reduction to absurdity.” This form of argumentation has been employed throughout history in various fields, including philosophy, mathematics, and logic. It is often used to refute an opponent’s claim by demonstrating the absurd consequences of accepting their position.

In the pursuit of truth and sound reasoning, fallacies present themselves as deceptive snares that can ensnare even the most critical thinker. Among these is the ad baculum fallacy, or appeal to force, a fallacious argumentative tactic that employs coercion or threats to support a conclusion. This article provides an in-depth exploration of the ad baculum fallacy, unveiling its subtleties, historical roots, and the impact it has on discourse and decision-making.