1. Naturalist Fallacy

The naturalist fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which it is argued that, since something occurs in nature, that thing is morally acceptable. An example of the naturalist fallacy would be:

Rape occurs in nature. Not only do humans commit rape, but other species commit rape as well. Therefore, rape is acceptable.

While few people would hazard the above argument in polite society, millions of modern citizens use the exact same argument in a different context:

Killing and eating animals occurs in nature. Not only do humans kill and eat animals, but other species kill and eat animals as well. Therefore, killing and eating animals is acceptable.

In technical terms, this fallacy consists of an unwarranted shift between descriptive premises (e.g., rape occurs) and a prescriptive or normative conclusion (e.g., rape is okay). The argument is accordingly invalid. A way to undermine a naturalist fallacy argument is to point out that mere occurrence of an event does not make it right. For instance, in the first example above, the argument is undermined by pointing out that our society has almost universally agreed that rape is unacceptable, even though it occurs.

2. False Dichotomy Fallacy

The false dichotomy fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which two alternative conclusions are assumed to be the only two possible conclusions.  An example of the false dichotomy fallacy would be:

John is not an atheist. Therefore, he must be a Christian.

The reasoning is flawed because there are many more than two philosophical or religious positions available to a person. In the context of justifying and perpetuating inhumanity, the false dichotomy fallacy is used in a variety of ways, such as:

Going without protein is not healthy. Therefore, we must eat animals.

In technical terms, this fallacy consists of an unwarranted assumption that there is a disjunctive (i.e., “either/or”) relationship between two terms (e.g., one must either be Christian or atheist). The argument is accordingly invalid. A way to undermine a false dichotomy argument is to point out that there is a third possible conclusion, one which can occur without either of the first two possible conclusions occurring.

For instance, in the first example above, the argument is undermined by pointing out that it is possible for a person to be neither an atheist nor a Christian but rather a Muslim.

3. Name-Of-God Fallacy

The name-of-God fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which it is argued that, since a seemingly atrocious act is committed in the name of religion, patriotism, science or some other cause, the act is acceptable. An example of the name of God fallacy would be:

The World Trade Center was destroyed and thousands of people died, but this action was committed in the name of God. Therefore, this action was acceptable.

This form of reasoning is unfortunately common in its usage today. The reasoning is flawed because a person’s motivation for committing an act is not sufficient to justify the act itself. Other examples include:

These dogs were intentionally drowned, but this action was committed for the advancement of science. Therefore, this action was acceptable.

These prisoners were intentionally tortured, but this action was committed in the name of patriotism. Therefore, this action was acceptable.

In technical terms, this fallacy consists of an unwarranted shift from descriptive premises (e.g., the subjective intentions of a perpetrator) to a prescriptive or normative conclusion (e.g., a seemingly atrocious act is not atrocious). The argument is accordingly invalid. It may actually be worse than a bare ends-justify-the-means argument, since the name-of-God fallacy may be used even in the absence an “end” worth pursuing. A way to undermine a name-of-God argument is to point out that an atrocious act remains an atrocious act even when committed by someone who thinks that he or she is serving a cause or ideal.

4. Irrelevant Distinction Fallacy

The irrelevant distinction fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which it is argued that, since a difference between two cases can be perceived, different treatment of the two cases is justified. An example of the irrelevant distinction fallacy would be:

Women and men have different chromosomes. Therefore, the legal system should treat women and men differently.

The reasoning is flawed because a mere scientific difference is not by itself sufficient to justify institutionalized legal discrimination. Other examples include:

These people are from a different culture. Therefore, they are inferior to us.

Humans are generally smarter than other animals. Therefore, only humans deserve rights.

These animals were intentionally burned alive, which would be a crime if committed at home. But these animals were intentionally burned alive in a university laboratory; therefore, this act was not a crime.

It is wrong to eat cats or dogs. But cows have hooves rather than paws. Therefore, it is not wrong to eat cows.

In technical terms, this fallacy is simply one of relevance, i.e., the argument assumes without warrant that the premises offered have probative value with respect to the conclusion. The argument is accordingly invalid. Arguments employing fallacies of relevance are particularly easy to shoot down by following the irrelevant premises to some bizarre conclusion. For instance, in the first example above, the argument can be undermined by pointing out that if a mere chromosomal difference were enough to require legal distinction, then every unique individual (except for genetically identical twins) would have to have a one-person legal system made specially for them. Such a situation would render the notion of a “legal system” largely meaningless.

5. Appeal to Tradition

The appeal to tradition fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which it is argued that since a seemingly atrocious act is part of a tradition, the act is not an atrocity. An example of the appeal to tradition fallacy would be:

Female genital mutilation (euphemistically called “female circumcision”) seems like an atrocity. But since female genital mutilation is part of the African tradition, female genital mutilation is not an atrocity.

The reasoning is flawed because the mere fact that an act has become a tradition does not make that act acceptable. Other examples include:

Torturing a trapped bull to death seems like an atrocity. But since bull “fighting” is a Spanish tradition, bull “fighting” is not an atrocity.

Torturing an animal to death seems like an atrocity. But this form of torture is part of our religious tradition. Therefore, this form of torture is not an atrocity.

In technical terms, this fallacy is simply one of relevance, i.e., the argument assumes without warrant that the premises offered have probative value with respect to the conclusion. The argument is accordingly invalid. Arguments employing this fallacy can be easily shot down by demonstrating that many traditions have already been abolished because they were, despite being traditions, obviously immoral. Human slavery would be a classic example.

6. Perfect-Voting-Record Fallacy

The perfect-voting-record fallacy is a flawed method of reasoning in which it is assumed that a small set of issues that were expressly considered represent all possible issues that could have been considered. An example of the PVR fallacy would be:

The terrorist regime of Q commits thousands of acts of terrorism every year, but only once has the Q leadership considered a limitation on terrorism.  This limitation—which provided that suicide-bombers should not eat garlic—passed unanimously.  Therefore, the terrorists of Q have a perfect voting record on terrorism.

While most people would not be duped by the above argument, many well-meaning activists go for the following argument and even use it themselves:

The meat-eaters of political party J kill and eat several thousand animals each year, but only a few limitations on animal-killing have been considered.  These limitations—which provide that animals to be killed must not be caged in veal crates—have been unanimously supported by the meat-eaters in political party J. Therefore, the meat-eaters in party J have a perfect voting record for animals.

In technical terms, this fallacy consists of reliance on an unrepresentative sample.  Specifically, the argument ignores the potentially thousands of issues that could have been addressed but were not.  The argument is accordingly invalid.

A way to undermine a perfect-voting-record argument is to point out that one cannot be said to have a “perfect voting record” on a subject when one has simply failed to vote at all on the major issues pertaining to that subject. For instance, the ancient Sumerians probably never held a vote on the militarization of space, but to conclude that they therefore had a “perfect voting record” on the militarization of space would be bizarre.

7.  Misplaced Burden Fallacy

The misplace burden fallacy is a flawed method of reasoning in which the burden of persuasion is initially placed on the wrong side of a debate or legal battle. An example of the MB fallacy would be:

The plaintiff bears the burden of proof and persuasion in the American legal system.  But, today, we’re going to pretend that the burden is on the defendant anyway.  And since the defendant hasn’t proven his case, he loses.

No lawyer would allow such nonsense to slip by in court of law, but many well-meaning citizens, even animal rights activists, fail to confront this commonly held view:

Torturing and killing of the innocent is universally recognized as wrong.  But, today, we’re going to pretend that torturing and killing of the innocent is right anyway.  And since those who oppose such torture and killing haven’t proven their case, they lose.

In technical terms, this fallacy consists of replacing a premise known to be true with a premise known to be false.  Specifically, the argument places the initial burden on party A, even though it is known that party B actually bears the initial burden.  The argument is accordingly invalid.

Make no mistake:  the burden of persuasion belongs on those who favor killing and torturing of the innocent, not on those who oppose it. And that burden will never be successfully carried. Which is why the global transition to veganism is not only desirable but inevitable.

---

(Original article publication date:  January 24, 2010 (Cruelty-Free))