Ethics and Moral Reasoning in Everyday Life

https://www.rappler.com/nation/things-to-know-chad-booc-activist-arrested-cebu-with-
lumad

https://karlomongaya.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/up-visayas-first-summa-cum-laude-is-a-
student-activist/
HOW TO DETECT
A FLAW IN LOGIC
 A fallacy is an error in reasoning. A flaw in LOGIC.

To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in

which the premises given for the conclusion do not
provide the needed degree of support.

FALLACY
(This differs from a factual error, which is simply
being wrong about the facts.When one say “Plane
crashes kill more people than autonmobile
accidents; hence, it is safer to travel in a car.” is not
fallacious but factually incorrect.)
DEDUCTIVE vs INDUCTIVE
FALLACY?
A deductive fallacy is an
argument with a deductive form
but the conclusion is invalid.

An inductive fallacy is less formal

than a deductive fallacy. They
are simply arguments which
appear to be inductive
arguments, but the premises do
not provide enough support for
the conclusion.
WHAT MAKES FALLACY TEMPTING?
POWERPLAY!
Fallacious arguments may involve psychological ploys such as use of coercion
and unequal power relationships between proposer and interlocutor.
IRRELEVANT CONCLUSION (IGNORATIO ELENCHI) OR THE RED HERRING

--diverts attention away from a fact in dispute

rather than address it directly.

Subsets include:
• purely personal considerations (argumentum ad
hominem),
• popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum--
appeal to the common practice)
• fear (argumentum ad baculum),
• conventional propriety (argumentum ad
verecundiam--appeal to authority)
 UN REPORTS WIDESPREAD HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS AND PERSISTENT IMPUNITY

https://www.ohchr.org/en/newsevents/pages/
displaynews.aspx?newsid=25924
AD MISERICORDIAM
 SOME OF THE MOST COMMON INFORMAL FALLACIES
1. Fallacy of Destroying the Exception
2. Fallacy of Reverse Accident
3. Argumentum ad Hominem / Attacking the Person
4. Argumentun ad Baculum/ Appeal to Fear
5. Argumentum ad Vericundiam/ Appeal to Authority
6.Argumentum ad Populum/ Appeal to Common
Practice
7. Argumentum ad Ignoratiam/ Burden of Proof Fallacy
8. Affirming the Consequent
9. Denying the Antecedent
10. Begging the Question/Petitio Principii
11. Call to Perfection
12. Fallacy Non Sequitur (It doesn’t follow)
13. The Bandwagon Fallacy
14. Middle-ground Fallacy
15. Black and White Thinking/False Dilemma
16. Appeal to Flattery/Apple-Polishing Fallacy
17. Confusing Cause and Effect
18. Poisoning the Well
19. Straw Man Fallacy
20. The Subjectivist Fallacy
21. Special Pleading
22. Slippery Slope
23.Fallacy of Many
Questions
 SOME EXAMPLES OF INFORMAL FALLACIES WE
SHOULD AVOID:
1. FALLACY OF ACCIDENT
/DESTROYING THE EXCEPTION -- or
making a generalization that disregards
exceptions

e.g., Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons

cut people. Therefore, surgeons are
criminals.

2. CONVERSE FALLACY OF
ACCIDENT/ REVERSE ACCIDENT --
argues from a special case to a general
rule

e.g., Every swan I have seen is white, so it

must be true that all swans are white.
3. ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
--is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact
about the author or the person presenting the claim or
argument.

Typically, this fallacy involves two steps.

First, an attack against the character of person making the

claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the
character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting
the claim).
Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or
argument the person in question is making (or presenting)
AD HOMINEM
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST: “I believe that killing farmers and the

human rights defenders is morally wrong.”
NTF ELCAC: “Of course, as expected you would say that, since you are a
Leftist. There is no point in the debate.”
HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST: “What about the arguments I gave in
support of my position?”
NTF ELCAC : “Like I said, you are a leftist-activist, so you have to say that
killing leftists is wrong.”

“Furthermore, you’re all the same with communist terrorists, so I can’t

believe what you say.”
4. APPEAL TO FEAR/ AD BACULUM /SCARE TACTICS
THIS LINE OF "REASONING" IS FALLACIOUS BECAUSE CREATING
FEAR/THREAT IN PEOPLE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF/EVIDENCE FOR
A CLAIM.
5. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY:
THIS FALLACY IS COMMITTED WHEN THE PERSON IN QUESTION IS NOT A LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY
ON THE SUBJECT

(ESPECIALLY IF PERSON A IS NOT QUALIFIED TO MAKE RELIABLE CLAIMS IN SUBJECT S.)

Bill and Jane are arguing about the morality of
abortion.

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally acceptable.

After all, a woman should have a right to her own
body."
Jane: "I disagree completely. Dr. Johan Skarn says that
abortion is always morally wrong, regardless of the
situation. He has to be right, after all, he is a
respected expert in his field.”
Bill: "I've never heard of Dr. Skarn.Who is he?”
Jane: “FYI…He's the guy that won the Nobel Prize in
physics for his work on cold fusion.”
Bill: "I see. Does he have any expertise in morality or
ethics?”
Jane: "I don't know. But he's a world-famous expert, so
I believe him."
6. APPEAL TO COMMON PRACTICE
THE BASIC IDEA BEHIND THE FALLACY IS THAT THE FACT THAT MOST PEOPLE DO X IS USED
AS "EVIDENCE" TO SUPPORT THE ACTION OR PRACTICE.

"Yeah, I know some

people say that stealing
from the people is wrong.

But we all know that

every poltician does it.
So, it's okay."
7. BURDEN OF PROOF /AD IGNORANTIAM
-- A FALLACY IN WHICH THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS PLACED ON THE WRONG SIDE;
WHEN A LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR SIDE A IS TAKEN TO BE EVIDENCE FOR SIDE B IN
CASES IN WHICH THE BURDEN OF PROOF ACTUALLY RESTS ON SIDE B.

Congress: "I think that we should increase taxes in the TRAIN

LAW and our foreign debt in order to have more money for the
military, police, Federalism etc and that will ensure Philippine
development.”
Makabayan Bloc: “That would be a bad idea, considering the mis-
prioritization as seen in the Annual Budget, the state of corruption
in the Philippines, and the human rights violations. We need to
focus on supporting the frontline health workers, safe education,
and those who lost their jobs in the pandemic.”
Congress: “Oh my gosh, I don’t believe this! How can anyone like you be
against Philippine progress?!"
8. AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT--draws a conclusion from premises
that do not support that conclusion by assuming Q implies P on
the basis that P implies Q

e.g., If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I have a sore throat. Therefore,
I have the flu. Other illnesses may cause sore throat.

9. DENYING THE ANTECEDENT--draws a conclusion from premises that

do not support that conclusion by assuming Not P implies Not Q
on the basis that P implies Q

e.g., If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I do not have the flu.
Therefore, I do not have a sore throat. Other illnesses may cause sore throat.
10. BEGGING THE QUESTION
-A FALLACY IN WHICH THE PREMISES
INCLUDE THE CLAIM THAT THE
CONCLUSION IS TRUE. (CIRCULAR AND
DOESN’T GET YOU ANYWHERE.)

Jack: "God must exist."

Jill: "How do you know?"
Jack: "Because the Bible says
so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the
Bible?"
Jack: "Because the Bible was
written by God."
10. BEGGING THE QUESTION (Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando)
--arguing in a circle, or assuming the answer)--demonstrates a conclusion by
means of premises that assume that conclusion

e.g., My boyfriend must be telling the truth, because I have heard him say the same
thing many times before.

***(The boyfriend may be consistent in what he says, but he may have been lying the whole
time.)

11. CALL TO PERFECTION is committed when one argues to postpone some

action or policy until some unlikely event or impossible change is achieved.

e.g. I’ll give the workers full control of the operations the day that pigs can fly.
***(Since pigs do not fly and will probably never be able to, the action or policy or decision
will probably never take place.)
12. FALLACY OF FALSE CAUSE or Non Sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow")
--incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another
 13. THE BANDWAGON

THIS IS A FALLACY IN WHICH A THREAT OF REJECTION BY ONE'S PEERS IS SUBSTITUTED

FOR EVIDENCE IN AN "ARGUMENT."

A student says that she likes the idea that

students should also take a stand and join
the protest rally against Budget Cut and
Intrusion on Academic Freedom.

Her friends laugh at her, telling her she must

not be that seriously overacting. They
threaten to ostracize her from their group.

She decides to recant and abandon her

position in order to avoid rejection.
14. THE FALLACY OF MIDDLE GROUND
/GOLDEN-MEAN/FALLACY OF
MODERATION
– COMMITTED WHEN IT IS ASSUMED
THAT THE MIDDLE POSITION
BETWEEN TWO EXTREMES MUST BE
CORRECT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS THE
MIDDLE POSITION
15. FALLACY OF FALSE DILEMMA /BLACK AND WHITE THINKING

--WHEN YOU REASON FROM AN EITHER-OR POSITION AND YOU HAVEN'T CONSIDERED ALL
RELEVANT POSSIBILITIES, YOU COMMIT THE FALLACY OF FALSE DILEMMA.
16. APPEAL TO FLATTERY /APPLE-POLISHING /“COLORFUL” EXPRESSION

THE BASIC IDEA BEHIND THIS FALLACY IS THAT FLATTERY IS PRESENTED IN THE
PLACE OF EVIDENCE FOR ACCEPTING A CLAIM. THIS SORT OF "REASONING" IS
FALLACIOUS BECAUSE FLATTERY IS NOT, IN FACT, EVIDENCE FOR A CLAIM.

"Might I say that this is the best GE class I've ever taken in UPV.

By the way, about the grades, I expect to get a flat 1.0”

17. CONFUSING CAUSE AND EFFECT
THIS FALLACY IS COMMITTED WHEN A PERSON ASSUMES THAT ONE EVENT MUST
CAUSE ANOTHER JUST BECAUSE THE EVENTS OCCUR TOGETHER.

MORE FORMALLY, THIS FALLACY INVOLVES DRAWING THE CONCLUSION THAT A IS

THE CAUSE OF B SIMPLY BECAUSE A AND B OCCUR REGULARLY TOGETHER (AND THERE IS
NOT A COMMON CAUSE THAT IS ACTUALLY THE CAUSE OF A AND B). THE MISTAKE BEING
MADE IS THAT THE CAUSAL CONCLUSION IS BEING DRAWN WITHOUT ADEQUATE
JUSTIFICATION.

• “It is claimed by some people that severe illness is

caused by depression and anger. After all, people
who are severely ill are very often depressed and
angry. Thus, it follows that the cause of severe
illness actually is the depression and anger. So, a
good, cheerful, positive vibes attitude is the only
key to staying healthy.”
18. POISONING THE WELL

THIS SORT OF "REASONING"

INVOLVES TRYING TO DISCREDIT
WHAT A PERSON MIGHT LATER
CLAIM BY PRESENTING
UNFAVORABLE INFORMATION (BE IT
TRUE OR FALSE) ABOUT THE PERSON.

"Before turning the floor over to this

opponent of mine, I ask you to
remember that those who oppose my
plans and programs by the Duterte
Administration DO NOT REALLY HAVE
the best wishes of the nation at heart.
Ganyan na mga kabataan ngayon eh,
hindi marunong magrespeto!"
19. STRAW MAN FALLACY

THE STRAW MAN FALLACY IS

COMMITTED WHEN A PERSON SIMPLY
IGNORES A PERSON'S ACTUAL
POSITION AND SUBSTITUTES A
DISTORTED, EXAGGERATED OR
MISREPRESENTED VERSION OF THAT
POSITION
20. THE SUBJECTIVIST FALLACY

THIS IS COMMITTED WHEN A PERSON REJECTS A CLAIM BY ASSERTING THAT THE

CLAIM MIGHT BE TRUE FOR OTHERS BUT IS NOT FOR HIM/HER

“Gen. Dela Rosa believes that recruitment of

students into certain organizations should be
prevented as this is tantamount to
brainwashing.”

And yet he sees no problem with the actual

recruitment into PMA and its physical violence
of hazing saying that this recruitment is not the
same. Brainwashing is true for those
organizations, but it is not true for PMA. “They
are trained to be warriors!”
 21. SPECIAL PLEADING

THIS IS A FALLACY IN WHICH A PERSON APPLIES STANDARDS, PRINCIPLES, RULES, ETC.

TO OTHERS WHILE TAKING HIMSELF TO BE EXEMPT, WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE EXEMPTION

President Duterte says he hates drugs and corruption.

Magpatayan na lang tayo! But he protects Faeldon
despite the Php 6.4 Billion worth of drugs that passed
through when him when he was Customs Chief.
Moreover, Faeldon signed for the release of convicted
rapist-murderer Mayor Antonio Sanchez.

He says no one should question him. “Ang magkaso ng

impeachment malalagot!” he says since he is an
exception because he is the President.

Therefore, the standard of punishing corrupt and

murderers should not be applied to him.
22. SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY – ASSUMES THAT DRASTIC
CONSEQUENCES WILL FOLLOW A CERTAIN ACTION.
IT CLAIMS THAT A FIRST STEP WILL LEAD TO A
UNAVOIDABLE AND ULTIMATE STEP TOWARDS
NEGATIVE RESULT.

• “If we allow women to have

abortions, then pretty soon nobody
will give birth, and the human race
will die out.”

• “To be a vegetarian is not good

because it is self-destructive. If we
all become vegetarians, we would
eat all the trees and plants and
we’ll all die.”
23. FALLACY OF MANY QUESTIONS (Plurium
Interrogationum)
- grouping more than one question in the form of a single question as a trick.

“Is it true that you are no longer

a member of the terrorist
organization Kabataan Party List?”
(A Yes or No answer will still be an admission that it is a terrorist organization,
although it is not because it is a legitimately voted and recognized Party List in the
Philippines.)
“Whatever a man sows, that he will reap” – Galatians 6:7

“Do not answer fools according to their folly, or you will be a fool
yourself.
Answer fools according to their folly, and they will be wise in
their own eyes.”
-- Proverbs 26: 4-5
 RECAP

There is a dangerous mindset out there. The idea that we are

living in a “post truth world” and that the truth no longer
matters. People support murderous acts and intent saying “it
works for me, and that’s all that matters” or they support
politico-military officials despite their bloodthirst and proven
incapacity to actually serve the people, rather than self-serving
interest.
 RECAP

• “But guess what, the concept of truth has not

changed; what has changed is our willingness to
sacrifice our intellectual integrity for information that
supports our beliefs, personal values and ideologies.”
• Being able to identify errors in reasoning (known as
logical fallacies) is a way that you can do your part to
bring more truth back into our “post-truth world”.
REFERENCES:
Acuna, A. (2004). Philosophical Analysis. Quezon City: UP Press.

Bennett, B. (2012). Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of over 300 Logical Fallacies. MA: Archieboy Holdings LLC

Curtis, Michael. (1981). The Great Political Theories. New York: Avon Book.

Internet Sources:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/search retrieved on 02 March 2020.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/ retrieved on 02 March 2020.

Cartoon Sources
• www.amultiverse.com

• www.blogninapaley.com

• www.cartoonbank.com

• www.cartoonstock.com

• www.logiccurriculum.com

• www.oddrops.blog