1.4 Moral Fallacies

Some of the informal fallacies we covered in the last chapter are particularly common when people argue about morality and politics. Here are some examples:

1. “People from that part of town are cliquish and judgmental. They can’t possibly be right about the morality of eating meat.”
2. “Sara was raised by a bunch of right-wing bigots. You can’t seriously think that she’s right about the death penalty being wrong!”
3. “That politician wants us to believe we ought to pay more tax, but she hasn’t filed a tax return in five years!”
4. “If we permit gay marriage, what is to prevent brothers from marrying sisters, or adults from marrying children or, heaven forbid, a man from marrying his sheep?”
5. “Censorship is immoral. If we censor this kind of pornography, we have to censor anything the public finds distasteful. Pretty soon we’ll be burning books and putting people in jail as instigators. This is a fast track to fascism!”
6. “Eating meat can’t be wrong, no one thinks twice about it!”
7. “All cultures have held that physical torture of some kind is morally ok, so some kind of physical torture must be morally ok!”  

Can you identify these fallacies?

1. Appeal to Nature

There are some fallacies that are fallacies of moral reasoning, in particular. One common moral fallacy is the “appeal to nature fallacy”.

To understand the appeal to nature fallacy, it’s helpful to think about what we’re actually arguing about when we argue about morality. Moral arguments are typically about what sorts of things are morally good or morally bad, or about what we should or shouldn’t do. Now, sometimes, people try to convince each other that, say, a certain kind of behavior is morally good (or is something people should do) by saying that it is natural, where this is taken to mean either 1) other animals do it or 2) people have always done it in the past. Similarly, sometimes people argue that something is morally bad (or is something people shouldn’t do) by saying that it is unnatural, where this is taken to mean either 1) other animals don’t do it or 2) people have never done it in the past. Here are some examples:

(8) “People shouldn’t go vegetarian, it’s just unnatural! In the wild, animals eat each other all the time.”

(9) “People shouldn’t go vegetarian! We’ve always eaten meat, and wouldn’t have evolved to be as smart as we are now if we hadn’t done so. It’s just natural for people to eat animals.”

Notice, however, that the fact that something is natural in this sense doesn’t mean it is morally good, or that people should act that way. Why? Well, humans are pretty different from other animals: we can think about our behavior and ask questions like, “is this right or wrong? Would it be fair/cruel/selfish?” As such, the fact that non-human animals act in a certain way doesn’t, on its own, make it ok for humans to do the same. In fact, that people can ask these sorts of questions about their own behaviour suggests that what is natural for people is to take certain actions because they think those actions are justified, rather than just follow their instincts in the way that other animals do.

It’s also pretty easy to see why the fact that people have always acted in a certain way isn’t actually a good reason for them to continue to act that way. After all, the fact that people in some societies might have always acted in ways that are, say, racist or sexist, isn’t a good reason to think they should continue to act that way!

The appeal to nature fallacy is sometimes called the “is-ought” fallacy. Just because something is the case (or has always been the case), isn’t a reason to think it should remain the case, or that it is good. To see that this is a bad way of reasoning, just imagine someone arguing that because there is a lot of homelessness in New York City, there should be a lot of homelessness in New York City. That’s obviously a terrible argument!

Here are some more examples of the appeal to nature fallacy

(10) “It’s very natural for a child to lash out at her brother and hit him once in a while. You should just let her.”

(11) “You say I’m being unfair -- I say it’s a dog-eat-dog world!”

(12) “People say we ought to help the poor, but it’s only natural to prioritize your close friends and family.”

2. Fallacies of Practical vs Factual Reasoning

Recall the distinction, explained in 1.1, between factual and practical arguments. If the conclusion of an argument is a purported statement of fact (i.e. something that can be true or false) then the argument is a factual argument. If the conclusion concerns something that should be done or should be the case, like a piece of advice or a recommendation for action, then it is a practical argument.

Now, it’s worth noting that not all the ways of arguing that we discussed in 1.3 will actually be fallacies when they appear in practical arguments. This is true, for instance, of appeals to pity. For instance, the following is a fallacy:

(13) “Just think of what it’d mean for climate change to be real! Millions of people will be displaced, species will disappear forever and our great grandchildren will suffer so much more than we have. Climate change cannot be happening, it’s just too devastating.”

Clearly, the fact that the consequences of climate change will be devastating is completely irrelevant to whether or not climate change is happening. Unfortunately, reality isn’t responsive to our mere wishes!

Notice that argument (13) is a factual argument, as the conclusion (that climate change cannot be happening) is a statement of fact. Here’s a different argument:

(14) “Just think of what it’d mean for climate change to be real! Millions of people will be displaced, species will disappear forever and our great grandchildren will suffer so much more than we have. The consequences are too devastating to even risk -- we must act to limit climate change!”

The difference here is that (14) is a practical argument. The conclusion is, after all, a recommendation as to what we should do. In this example, moreover, it’s not obvious that appealing to the hearer’s emotions is irrelevant to the question of whether we should accept the conclusion. In fact, that the consequences could be so devastating is a pretty good reason to do something about climate change!

In summary then, an appeal to pity is only a fallacy when it appears in a factual argument. This is because what we believe is supposed to be responsive to the way the world is, not whether or not we like the way the world is. Be careful though, this doesn’t mean that when a practical argument appeals to pity, it’s necessarily a good argument -- it just means that it isn’t a fallacy. For instance:

(15) “You shouldn’t give your money to charity. You’ve been saving for that new pair of fancy shoes, and just think how upset you’ll be if you don’t get them before they sell out!”

The fact that you’ll be sad if you don’t buy the shoes is not irrelevant to the question of whether or not you should buy them. However, that doesn’t mean it’s the most important thing at stake either. That is, you might have a stronger or better reason for giving your money to charity, despite the fact that it’ll make you sad for a little while. So, the fact that you’ll be sad isn’t irrelevant but that doesn’t mean the argument is necessarily a convincing one either.