That's old fashioned rationalization.
Doesn't necessarily have to be a logical fallacy
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
44 points (94.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26674 readers
1845 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Can you elaborate?
I can provide an example, but you might hate me for it. I swear this is just to explain what I mean by this fallacy because I can't think of another example right now.
Justifying killing/using an animal for its skin/hide (e.g. leather or fur), because you're already killing the animal for its flesh, when in actual fact the killing of the animal doesn't need to take place at all (hypothetically).
Or justifying the killing of calves for veal as a necessary component of dairy production, when in fact dairy production isn't necessary, either.
I hope that makes sense
I don't think it's a fallacy, just really mixed up.
One I can think of is false dilemma/false dichotomy (a false premise that erroneously limits what options are available, and forces us to choose between 2 options (either cause unnecessary harm and waste the full usefulness of the harm, or cause unnecessary harm and maximise its usefulness) when there is a third option to not cause the unnecessary harm in the first place.
However that's more general and I was looking for something more specific that refers to assuming something is necessary because it's an unavoidable component of another thing which itself is unnecessary.
I was nerd sniped by this post for like an hour, and "false dichotomy" was the closest I could find, lol. You could say that the argument has an unstated co-premise ("the harm is necessary"), to which you are raising an "inference objection".
I appreciate your thoughts! And "nerd sniped" is a great term 😂 I agree, I think there may not be a specific name for this fallacy (though it could be described as somewhat of a false requirement or false necessity fallacy), nor is it widely recognised in logic literature (as is often the case; some might call it a "made-up fallacy" but indeed a verifiable one), but it probably falls under the more general fallacies of "false dilemma/false dichotomy", as well as "fallacy of composition":
"Fallacy of composition occurs when someone assumes that what's true for part of something must also be true for the whole or that if one thing is a necessary component of another thing, both must be necessary, even if it's not the case. In essence, it assumes that the properties of the parts apply to the whole."
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Neither of those are good examples. The killing of calves is not necessary for dairy production, they could always be sold to be raised to adulthood which is what happens to most of them since that's more profitable.
And the using of the animal skin/hide IF you're already killing it for food is a perfectly valid argument for using the skin/hide, the alternative being killing the animal and disposing of the skin/hide. You might then shift your argument to attack the need to eat the animal which is another (and a lot more complex) discussion, but the initial of why using the skin/hide is solved to both parties satisfaction so you reached a common ground, i.e. you agree that IF one were to kill the animal for food, the use of his skin/hide would be acceptable, now the argument needs to shift to whether it is acceptable to kill the animal for food.
If then the person argues he's killing for food because he's already using the skin/hide then he's using a circular argument. If he can provide an argument you consider acceptable for eating the animal you would also agree that it is acceptable to wear him.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(107 replies)
I need sour cream for my tacos, and I need tacos.
What where's the "unnecessary" part?
I probably don't need tacos specifically..
Sounds like somebody's never had a tacomergency before.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I think you mean false premise or argument from false premises. "A, therefore B", even though A is false.
Post rationalization perhaps?
It could also be similar to the logic of phrenology, where they pointed at objective measurements of various features of people's skulls to make wild conclusions about the superiority or inferiority of different races. It's not that they were falsifying the measurements, they just skipped a step and treated the sensibilities of the most privileged and influential members of society as objective fact.
view more: next ›