Using Flawed Logic to Attack Others

Our discourse is broken.

We see this daily. Political, moral, and religious disagreements are doing harm to families, friendships, churches, and various other important human communities and relationships. People act out in anger. They see those on the other side not only as wrong, but as evil. We are fair and reasonable. They, whoever they are for us, are not. Many of the major players in the media fuel this. The same goes for too many politicians, pastors, pundits, podcasters, platform-builders, and people in general.

What can we do? How can we better embody the Way of Jesus as we discuss controversial political, moral, and religious issues with others?

There is a lot more we need to do, but a good start would be to avoid two logical fallacies that foul our discourse, and to focus on some virtues that would clean it up. Today, let’s start with one of the logical fallacies, the assailment by entailment fallacy.

What does it mean for a belief to be entailed by other another belief or beliefs? Here is an example. If I believe Patrick is taller than Andy, and Andy is taller than Xavier, then logically I must believe that Patrick is taller than Xavier. The first two beliefs logically entail the third belief.

What does this have to do with our broken public discourse?

Sometimes, we ascribe a morally repugnant belief to someone else based on some other belief they hold, when it doesn’t necessarily follow that they hold that morally repugnant belief. This is the assailment by entailment fallacy: person #1 ascribes a morally repugnant belief to person #2 due to some other belief person #2 holds, without sufficient evidence that they actually hold that belief. The fact that they hold belief #1 does not entail that they also hold belief #2, but we assume it does. Consider an example from the abortion debate.

Frank: Hey Judith, what’s your take on abortion? Don’t you agree that abortion on demand is morally wrong?

Judith: Actually, no. I think that abortion is morally permissible.

Frank: What!? I couldn’t disagree more. I just can’t believe - like you do - that it’s okay to murder an innocent person!

Judith: Whoa - who said I believe that? Besides, I just can’t believe - like you do - that it’s okay to curtail the rights of women!

Both Frank and Judith have committed the assailment by entailment fallacy. It could very well be the case that Judith does not think that her belief that abortion is morally permissible also means that it is okay to murder an innocent person. Perhaps she doesn’t believe that fetuses are persons, in the morally relevant sense, while still believing that it is wrong to murder innocent people. Now that is a vital debate to have with respect to abortion - the moral status of the fetus - but the way Frank has replied shuts down the possibility of a healthy debate.

Now consider Judith’s reply. Perhaps Frank does not think it is generally okay to curtail the rights of women. But in this case, given his views about the moral status of the fetus, he thinks the fetal right to life outweighs the relevant rights possessed by the mother. Again, that is a vital debate to have with respect to abortion - the weight of the rights in play, including both the moral and legal dimensions of those rights - but the way Judith replies shuts down the possibility of a healthy debate. (It would also be good to have the all too often neglected discussion about the responsibilities of men and fathers.)

I’ve seen this over and over again, especially online. But we can do better. We have to do better. We must see each other as partners in the quest for wisdom and knowledge, rather than enemies to defeat by wrongly attacking with logical fallacies.

Those who truly do care for and seek out the truth will be careful to avoid this fallacy. Start by simply asking the other person a few questions. Do you think fetuses are persons, with a right to life? Why or why not? Do you think the rights of women should be curtailed? Why or why not? Then we could actually have a discussion that has the chance to go someplace, rather than ascribing evil beliefs to another person that they do not in fact hold. That would be a good start.

Finally, what does all of this have to do with the Way of Jesus? Many things come to mind, but at a basic level avoiding this fallacy, this way of treating others, is yet another way to love our neighbors as ourselves, especially the ones we disagree with on controversial issues. Such love is fundamental to being a follower of the Way.

—

The above is from “Getting Our Minds Out of the Gutter: Fallacies that Foul Our Discourse (and Virtues that Clean it Up),” by Robert K. Garcia and Nathan L. King, in Virtues in Action: New Essays in Applied Virtue Ethics, pp. 190-206.