|
|
Ex Concessis (Guilt By Association) |
| Description: | ||
| The argument attacks a position by pointing out that people who hold the position sometimes act in ways that could be construed as inconsistent with the position, or hold (or previously held) views that could be construed as inconsistent with the position, or associate with other people who act in such ways or hold such views. | ||
|
|
||
| Comments: | ||
| The phrase "ex consessis" is a Latin phrase meaning "from what has been conceded." It would seem to refer to an argument that begins with premisses that have already been admitted or granted by the opponent, although in practice it is used to label arguments in which the opponent's "concession" of the premisses is merely assumed or implied. | ||
|
|
||
| Examples: | ||
| "You can't criticize automobiles for causing air pollution. After all, you drive a car, too." | ||
| "The Palestinians cannot really be interested in peace. Some of them are known terrorists." | ||
| "Vegetarianism is un-American. Hitler was a vegetarian." | ||
|
|
||
| Discussion: | ||
| Ideas connect together. It is reasonable to expect people to
hold consistent beliefs, and it is desirable to hold consistent beliefs
ourselves. It is reasonable to expect people to act according to their
beliefs, and it is desirable to act consistently ourselves. Opinions that do
not sit comfortably with the rest of our beliefs and actions certainly need
to be examined. For this reason, it is not necessarily bad reasoning to
question opinions that are held by people with whom we disagree on other
matters, or by people who seem to act in a manner that appears to be
inconsistent with the opinions in question. However, there are many ways that ideas can be associated with each other, and only some of these reflect a true logical connection. The fallacy of Ex Concessis mimics the reasonable demand for logical consistency, but it errs by demanding "consistency" on points that go beyond the truly logical. Schopenhauer's example of the fallacy illustrates the principle: "If you believe that suicide is morally acceptable, why don't you go kill yourself?" It would certainly be inconsistent of someone to kill himself while believing that suicide is immoral, but there is no inconsistency if he fails to kill himself while holding that suicide is morally permitted. Presumably he also believes that it is morally permitted to remain alive! Beliefs and opinions can become associated (often for no logical reason) with ones friends, organizations to which one may belong, ones geographic location, time period, hobbies, life circumstances, etc. Beliefs and opinions can become associated with these things for logical reasons as well. It may be reasonable to demand that someone resign a country club membership if it turns out that the club is engaged in discriminatory practices, but it is not reasonable to question the sincerity of a person's views on (for example) affirmative action on the grounds that he or she comes from Texas or enjoys fly fishing. |
||
|
|
||
| Classification: A Fallacy of Irrelevance (a deductive fallacy of soundness with a falsehood in the major premiss) in the Ad Hominem family. | ||
|
||
| Source: From the essay, "The Art of Controversy" by Arthur Schopenhauer. Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer, trans. T. Bailey Saunders. New York: Willey Book Co., n.d. | ||
|
||
Go to: WELCOME EXPLANATION of PRINCIPLES TABLE of FALLACIES EXERCISES INDEX