An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Scare tactics =df. Saying something in connection with a claim that causes or is meant to cause a psychological response of some sort, such as a desire, fear, feeling, or emotion, which is meant to lead the person to whom the tactic is directed to accept the claim.
Using scare tactics is pseudoreasoning since “neither what is said nor the psychological response elicited is a reason for accepting the claim because neither is logically related to the claim.”
For instance, Jones says to her interviewer for a job: “I think that you will find that my resume makes me perfectly qualified for the position I am applying for. And I think that my uncle, who, incidentally, is on your board of directors, would agree.”
A warning is different from a scare tactic.
For instance, if Bill says to Ted: “Watch out for that patch of ice up ahead, you hit that with your skis and you may break your neck.”
That may scare Ted, but it is a warning not a scare tactic.
Only when the scare is irrelevant to the issue do we get pseudoreasoning.
To avoid pseudoreasoning, you need to recognize which issues are relevant and which are not.
Apple polishing =df. Compliments are used in place of reasons to get a person to do something or to accept a claim.
The use of complimentary language is not in itself apple polishing, but this form of pseudoreasoning occurs when “nice words are illegitimately used in connection with an issue to which they are irrelevant.”
An example: John says to his boss: “Sir I hope that you will support my request for a promotion. You are the best boss that I have ever had.” (That John’s boss is a good boss is irrelevant to John’s claim that he deserves a promotion.)
Wishful thinking =df. Believing that something is true because you want it to be true, or, alternatively, believing that something is false because you want it to be false.
For instance, thinking that the statement “Humans survive death” is true because not surviving seems too terrible to us.
Or thinking that “God does not exist” is false because then we find life meaningless and without moral foundation.
However, because desires do not themselves determine the truth values of statements to which the desires pertain, and do not by themselves give us reason for accepting or rejecting a claim, wishful thinking is a form of pseudoreasoning.
Peer pressure = df. Pseudoreasoning which says “If I don’t do x or I don’t accept claim y I will be rejected by my peers, therefore I think that I should do x or accept y because I want the acceptance of my peers.”
In peer pressure, a person does something unreasonable or accepts an unreasonable claim because he or she wants the approval of others, even though the approval of others is irrelevant to the issue.
For instance, a person gets in a car with friends who have been drinking because she does not want to be left out, or someone accepts the claim that “smoking is not really a health hazard, the government just wants us to think that” because that is what his peers who smoke say.
A kind of pseudoreasoning which says that a claim should be accepted because it is accepted by a number of others. That is, a person thinks that x must be true because the majority of people think that x is true.
However, the majority can be wrong.
Therefore, a claim’s acceptance by others all by itself does not generally warrant our accepting it.
The mere fact that most people believe a claim does not guarantee its truth.
A variant of the “argument” from popularity is Common practice =df. Everyone does x, or most people do x, therefore doing x is acceptable.
For instance, “It is okay for me not to report all of my income since this is what everyone else does.”
This is a form of pseudoreasoning since, even if it is true that most people do x, it may still be wrong to do x.
When someone defends an action by saying that others do the same thing, this can be a request for fair play.”
However, saying that people should be treated equally is not the same as recognizing that, if an action is wrong, it is wrong no matter how many people are doing it, and no matter who gets away with it and who doesn’t.
Relativism is opposed to the view that there can be objective truths the same for everyone, everywhere, everywhen, and that there are absolute values independently of views the thinking of groups and individuals.
Examples of objective truths are that a common, physical, external world exists independently of perception, that 2+2=4, and that water is H2O.
Examples of absolute values are that it is wrong to deliberately harm an innocent person, and that beauty is preferable to ugliness.
Simon Blackburn: “Relativism is frequently rejected on the grounds that it is essential to the idea of belief or judgement that there are standards that it must meet, independently of anyone’s propensity to accept it. Inability to make sense of such standards eventually paralyzes all thought.”
The central problem of relativism is one of giving it a coherent formulation, making the doctrine more than the platitude that differently situated people may judge differently, and less than the falsehood that contradictory views may each be true.
Most claims, certainly those about straightforward matters of fact (provided they are reasonably free of vagueness and ambiguity) are simply true or false independent of any particular person’s acceptance of them.
Those that accept the subjectivist fallacy – that truth is a subjective property of beliefs – want to put an end to argument.
It can hide fear of losing an argument, or represent intellectual indolence.
Again, one must distinguish between respect for person’s and the value of their opinions, which can and should be subjected to critical assessment.
Two wrongs make a right (two wrongs) = df. A form of pseudoreasoning in which it is thought that one wrong justifies another wrong, or when it is thought to be acceptable for a person x to harm another person y because it is thought that y would or might harm x.
Two wrongs reasoning “tries to justify illegitimate retaliation.” However, it is controversial whether retaliation is ever justified.
Retributivism =df. The view that “it is acceptable to do harm to someone in return for a similar harm he or she has done to you,” or that the punishment should fit the crime.
According to egalitarian retributivism, a society is justified morally in punishing a criminal by doing to him what he has done to the victim.
For instance, society is justified on such retributivist principles for putting a first degree murderer to death.