| 1. I understand you support the peace movement. You
know, human beings are aggressive creatures as a result of human evolution.
Our distant ancesters were aggressive in defending themselves and their offspring
from predators, and survived as a result. Human genetics preserves the result
of this struggle for survival. |
The Naturalistic Fallacy; Red Herring The fact that aggressive behavior was favored by evolution, and thus that some aggressive behavior is a part of human nature, does not imply that any given war is morally justifiable. The speaker in this case also diverts discussion away from the real issues pertaining to the moral status of war to a quite irrelevant question, thus offering a red herring. |
| 2. It is central to the great tradition of our party to preserve the fundamental American values of honesty, decency, and a concern for the family. It is these values that our opponents have forgotten--the values that we hold dear. The choice in this election is clear: either vote for the American way, or against it. | Appeal to the People or ad populum The speaker argues that it would be virtually an immoral act to vote for his opponent, but offers nothing more than emotionally charged words in support of this claim. |
| 3. We should never allow any restrictions on the purchase of handguns by individuals. Once we do this, there will be no end to the restrictions until fit is illegal to own a squirt gun. | Slippery Slope If we take any step towards the restriction of firearms, further restrictions, violating individual freedoms, will inevitably follow. This is an obvious example of slippery slope. |
| 4. George Bush to Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, 1987: It's not fair to judge my whole career by a rehash of Iran. How would you like it if I judged your career by those seven minutes when you walked off the set in New York? | Tu Quoque George Bush was accused of wrongdoing in the Iran/Contra affair during the Reagan administration, when Bush served as vice-president. Although these charges were never proven, they were used against Bush by Democrats during the 1997 electoral season. Rather's mistake, when he failed to show up on the set for seven minutes of air time, has no bearing on Bush's culpability in the Iran/Contra matter. |
| 5. Citing the historic exlucion of women from the
priesthood, the study [of a committee of Roman Catholic bishops] said ".
. . the constant tradition and practice, interpreted as of divine law, is
of such a nature as to constitute a clear teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium
[teaching authority] of the Church. [Source: Hartford Courant (20 December 1972)] |
Moral Conventionalism The argument of the bishops is that women should not be ordained as priests. The basis of the argument is simply that traditionally women have not been so ordained. |
| 6. Sure I deal drugs. But no one can say that there is anything wrong with this. I don't think it's wrong, other people do. But morality is just a matter of opinion. They have a right to their opinion, and I have a right to mine. | Red Herring (Moral Legalism, Ad Populum) One often hears variants of this argument in moral debate, especially when, as in this case, the speaker is attempting to absolve him or herself of a charge of moral wrongdoing. Morality is a matter of opinion, therefore there is no objective basis for making moral judgments. The argument is quite fallacious. First, the fact that people have opinions (beliefs) concerning what actions are morally right or wrong in no way implies that there is no rational basis to determine the truth or falsity of those opinions. Considering an analogy, most scientific theories, when first proposed, are matters of opinion in the sense that sufficient evidence to support these theories has yet to be gathered, but this does not imply that there is no basis to determine what scientific theories are true or false. Second, it is certainly correct to say that we are entitled to our opinions in the sense that, in a free society, we have a right to believe what we want, and express these beliefs (although remember Mill's quite reasonable argument that the right to such expression is not absolute). But our right to hold and express any opinion we wish does not imply that we have an obligation to accept the truth of all opinions. If this were the case, we would have an obligation to accept contradictory opinions as true--an absurd suggestion. Furthermore, our legal entitlement to hold and express opinions does not imply a moral right to do so. Legally a person has a right to believe and express the belief that African-Americans, Jews, and women are intellectual inferior to white males, but that doesn't mean that one cannot raise moral objections to these beliefs. Nor do the rights of individuals to hold and express opinions have any bearing on the issue of the morality of dealing drugs in any case. There is also an element of the ad populum fallacy in this argument. Americans are very protective of their rights, and any claim that something is a matter of entitlement (a right) has a tendency to elicit an emotional response. |
| 7. It is in the national interest to bomb the heck out of the Iraqis, so it is the right thing to do. | Moral Prudentialism The argument is that because bombing the Iraqis is in the interest of the American people, that therefore it is morally right, a clear example of prudentialism. |
| 8. As an academic, Professor Benedict J. Kerkvliet
has given himself away as biased and unscientific. . . . It is pathetic to
see Professor Kerkvliet, a non- Filipino, deploring political and social conditions
in a foreign country like the Philippines when his own country calls for
social and moral regeneration. [Source: Letter to the editor by Vincente Romero, Consul General, Philippine Consulate General, The Honolulu Advertiser, 5 December 1974] |
Tu Quoque Because the United States has social problems, Romero suggests, Kerkvliet has no valid basis to criticize the Filipino government. |
| 9. Jack Kevorkian's mercy killings are clearly immoral since the practice is not only against the law and not officially accepted by the American Medical Association, but it is completely unprecedented in medical practice. | Moral Legalism, Moral Conventionalism The fact that Kervorkian's actions are against the law (although he has yet to be successfully prosecuted), and are not accepted by the American Medical Association do not imply that they are immoral. Nor does the fact that mercy killing is not widely practiced imply this. |
| 10. There is a instinct in human beings for self- preservation, since it is clear that any action that runs contrary to our most basic instincts is also contrary to the demands of rational morality, it is clear that acts of suicide in any circumstances is morally worng. | The Naturalistic Fallacy The fact that any action is contrary to naturalinstincts or inclinations provides no support for theclaim that it is morally wrong. |
DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY: The individual to whom this page pertains is solely responsible for the information, content or materials contained in it. Because Northwest Missouri State University has no involvement in managing the content of this page, Northwest will not be liable for any damages of any kind arising from the use of it, including, but not limited to direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, and consequential damages.