Are Your Politics Built on Fallacies?

[00:00:00]Hello comrades.

[00:00:03]Many people think that because they can describe some element of society, they can thereby justifiably prescribe what's best for it. I find that the way such people think tends to follow a facious pattern of reasoning that we can easily discern when we know what to look for.

[00:00:22]Today we explore four fallacies that often appear as the backbone of many people's political discourse. If we hold up a magnifying glass, would all of your views survive? Only one way to find out.

[00:00:36]We begin with the naturalistic fallacy.

[00:00:39]The naturalistic fallacy says that because something is natural, it must be good, moral, or otherwise the best. So in other words, the naturalistic fallacy moves from a descriptive claim about something that is that something is natural immediately into a prescriptive claim about what we ought to do on that basis. That is that something is good or must be good or must be the best simply because it's natural. Let's consider a neutral example that demonstrates why this line of logic doesn't work.

[00:01:12]Jealousy is natural. Therefore, jealousy is a good feeling. That example makes it fairly clear why this form of logic doesn't work. That is, we all intuitively know that jealousy is not a good feeling to experience. However, when this fallacy appears in political discourse, it's not always so easy to catch. Consider these two political views on gender identity. Gender diversity is natural. It's existed throughout history and across cultures.

[00:01:45]Therefore, it should be accepted. Number two, there are only two natural sexes.

[00:01:52]So, gender identities beyond male and female should be disregarded as unnatural. So in the case of the first argument that we commonly hear from the left that is that we should accept all gender identities because various uh diverse gender identities have existed throughout time and history and therefore are natural and therefore are good or should be accepted. So many other things have existed throughout history like war and corruption, slavery, um sexual assault. Just because something's occurred over history doesn't mean that that's a reason that it should continue or that it's good or that it's morally best. So that's not to say that an argument can't be made for why we should accept gender diversity or why gender diversity could be good. It's only to say that as that argument stands, it's not a logical reason to believe anything. Just because something's natural doesn't mean we ought to do it or that it's good or that it's best. And in the second case that there are only two natural sexes and therefore gender identities beyond those two sexes should be disregarded as unnatural. Just because something does or doesn't occur in nature again doesn't immediately point to whether it's good or bad, whether we ought or ought not to do it or ought or ought not to agree with it. Shoes arguably don't occur in nature. Does that mean that we should just disregard shoes and start walking around barefoot all of the time? Well, consider houses. We don't naturally find homes already pre-made in the woods.

[00:03:22]There's no uh commonly available prefabs for everyone. No, they're constructed based on needs. Whether something is natural or in this argument's case, unnatural is not a reason at all as to whether it's good or bad or whether we ought or ought not to believe in it or have it. However, the conclusions of either one of these arguments could be true. What I'm saying here is that the naturalistic fallacy, the use of the naturalistic fallacy to get to the conclusions of these arguments makes it false. So if one would like to make either of these arguments, this unfortunately isn't the way to do it. So what do you all think? Do you hold any beliefs on the basis of how natural or unnatural they are? We continue our noble quest to number two. A much broader version of the naturalistic fallacy is the isought fallacy. Where the naturalistic fallacies says that something is natural, therefore it is good. The is ought fallacy assumes that because something is the case, it ought to be the case. Every naturalistic fallacy is itself an is ought fallacy.

[00:04:31]But not every is ought fallacy is a naturalistic fallacy. So a neutral example to demonstrate the reasoning flaw is humans commit sexual assault.

[00:04:42]Therefore, humans ought to commit sexual assault. This example makes it very clear the flaw in the reasoning. Just because something is the case does not mean that it ought to be the case. Just because something occurs doesn't mean that we should do it or should participate in it or should continue it.

[00:05:02]So, while it's clear when you put it in a neutral example such as this, again, it's not always so obvious when the isought fallacy comes up in regular discourse. Let's look at two views on gender roles. Women have historically been under represented in leadership.

[00:05:21]Therefore, leadership positions today ought to reflect equal gender representation.

[00:05:29]Men and women differ psychologically on average. Therefore, they need to occupy different social roles. So, we hear these views quite a lot in different segments of the political population, don't we? So, in the first case, it's saying that because women are and always have been under represented, we should take the opposite approach and make them equally represented in leadership roles. Just because something is or has been the case historically doesn't provide us any intel at all as to how good or bad morally right or wrong or where to go from there. The only thing something that is tells us is that it is or that it isn't what ought to be from it. That's not to say that women shouldn't be equally represented in gender roles, but that this form of reasoning doesn't get one there. And in the second case that because men and women differ psychologically on average they need to occupy different gender roles. 2 plus three doesn't equal four.

[00:06:33][laughter] You can put two things together but that doesn't necessarily mean they equal what you think they equal. Just because men and women differ psychologically on average written within that isn't the necessity of different gender [clears throat] roles.

[00:06:46]You can't see within those psychological differences immediately the spelling out of the gender roles they must conform to. You could argue that they should occupy different gender roles, but simply the basis of brain physiology alone isn't enough to make that determination. For either of these views, if you wish to get to the conclusion, the isought fallacy just isn't the way to do it. You would need to add additional premises and empirical evidence to make your point onward and upward or should I say inward and outward. Next we have the fallacy of composition. This fallacy assumes that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. So consider again a neutral example to demonstrate the flaw. Every individual pursuing their own self-interest will produce the best society. In case that one's not as obvious as the others, consider murderers, sadists, child predators.

[00:07:50]Individuals come with all manner of deviances that can create absolute havoc for others. If we lived in a society where every individual was completely free to pursue their own self-interest, it would be an absolute nightmare. The point there is that what is good or best for individual parts definitely is not logically guaranteed to be best for the whole. Let's look at two views on immigration. Most immigrants, undocumented or otherwise, are hardworking and lawabiding.

[00:08:22]Therefore, public safety and larger concerns about immigration are largely unfounded.

[00:08:29]Many immigrants, especially undocumented, commit crimes, form gangs, and burden public services. Therefore, immigration is a net burden on society.

[00:08:43]So the problem with the first view is just because many of a group or even most of a group are in this case hardworking and law-abiding doesn't mean all are. And furthermore, just because concerns around immigrants that are law-abiding and hardworking are largely unfounded, that doesn't make other forms of concern about immigration unfounded.

[00:09:06]What applies to the parts doesn't necessarily apply to the whole. And for the second view that many immigrants, undocumented or otherwise, commit crimes, form gangs, and burden public services, therefore making immigration a net burden on society. The same applies.

[00:09:24]It could be the case that many, it could even be the case that most immigrants, undocumented or otherwise, create a burden on society in some capacity. That doesn't mean though that as a whole, all of immigration is thereby a net burden on society. Just because many immigrants do X does not necessarily logically mean all immigrants do X. Some immigrants cause Y problems doesn't mean all of immigration is why. These are what the fallacy of composition is. One could make an argument that immigration is a net burden on society or in the other case that immigration concerns are largely unfounded. But going about it through the fallacy of composition is not the way to have a winning argument.

[00:10:07]Lastly, we have the fallacy of division.

[00:10:11]So, this is converse to the fallacy of composition. The fallacy [clears throat] of division assumes that what applies to the whole applies to the parts. So, for our neutral example to demonstrate the error in the logic, consider the USA is a wealthy country. Therefore, every American is wealthy. For that one, I don't really think I need to explain, but applies to the whole definitely does not necessarily logically apply to the parts. Let's consider two views on abortion. Abortion rights are necessary for women's liberation.

[00:10:46]Therefore, any woman who opposes abortion rights is against women's liberation.

[00:10:52]Abortion is morally wrong. Therefore, every abortion is morally wrong.

[00:11:00]So, all of these fallacies share something in common, don't they? It's that one could make arguments for either case. It's just the way you're going about making those arguments is not what we'd say is logically sound or logically valid. One could very well be for women's liberation, but disagree that abortion rights are included in that.

[00:11:24]Being against abortion wouldn't necessarily logically make them against women's liberation. I mean, you could make an argument for this that abortion and liberation are logically tied together somehow, but via the fallacy of division isn't the way to do it. And similarly in the second view that abortion is morally wrong, therefore every abortion is morally wrong.

[00:11:45]Consider murder is morally wrong, therefore every murder is morally wrong.

[00:11:50]Well, we all know there's cases where murder isn't morally wrong. For example, someone's broken into your home or someone's attacking you. There's many cases where the whole or whole principle or universal doesn't apply to every single one of its specific parts or every single individual case. That is, you cannot justifiably logically assume that a universal property applies to every individual instance without additional justification. Fallacies are important to pay attention to in social discourse. They don't just trap people in echo chambers, which itself can be horrific, but they end up shaping how societies treat people. This can be especially damaging in the movement of a descriptive claim to a prescriptive one because it's here that an unjustified moral restriction often emerges and becomes enforced through a form of social policing. That is, if you ought to do this, then you ought not to do that. Telling people what they can and can't do, who they are and who they aren't, in some cases can be a very slippery and dangerous slope to climb. A prescriptions restriction can take on a very menacing tone when society as a whole or some segment of it begins enforcing that restriction with a moral weight. This isn't always problematic.

[00:13:14]It's necessary to some extent as in you know one ought not to steal or murder for plainly obvious observable reasons in most cases. But consider the immigration examples from the fallacy of composition that was many immigrants undocumented or otherwise are hardworking and law-abiding. Therefore public safety and larger concerns about immigration are largely unfounded. So in this case, alongside the facious argument structure, this conclusion creates the view that immigration isn't a legitimate area of concern. This view then sort of transforms and turns into a moral restriction within the more liberal segments of populations that if you bring up immigration and any variety of negative or criticizing light, then you must be doing it for nefarious purposes because immigration concerns are largely unfounded. So why else would you bring it up? Thus, the problem with this argument isn't just that it's facious. It's that the facious prescription it generates comes with a damaging moral restriction as this view can impede productive discussions around legitimate immigration issues. That is, you know, we've all heard some variety of if you're against immigration, well then you must be racist.

[00:14:39]On the other side, the view many immigrants, especially undocumented, commit crimes, form gangs, and thereby burden public services. Therefore, immigration is a net burden on society.

[00:14:54]In this case, again, besides the facious argument structure we've already established, the prescription that this view generates creates an anti-immigration sentiment as a whole. That is this view tends to translate into conservative segments of the population holding the moral restriction that immigration as a whole is an issue and thereby we ought to have less of it. This can obviously quickly turn into all immigrant sentiments which can morph into us them thinking violence exclusion and extreme forms of nationalism which creates a very real burden on society and social political discourse. Thus fallacies are extremely important to pay attention to.

[00:15:42]Not just because our conclusions could be unjustified, but because the moral effects of those unjustified conclusions can become contributing factors through which horrific effects are possible.

[00:15:55]We're not just talking about hurt feelings or ideological division here.

[00:15:59]We're talking about genocides, financial disasters, holocausts, industrial accidents, public policy failures, corruption, war. Faulty reasoning can lead us down holes we might not be able to get out of or we'll have to struggle to great lengths to attempt to. So before we meaning any individual one of us or us as a whole prescribe how anything at all ought to be or ought to function. We should ensure that our reasoning and the evidence we're pointing to actually supports our conclusions. Stay aware everyone. I'll see you [music] in the next one.