Introduction
The simplest way define a fallacy is that it is the logical error in an argument or evaluation of a policy. Additionally, it can be the incorrect argument in rhetoric and logic that results in a lack of validity (Laurel 8 – 12). They are classified into formal and informal fallacies. Others have defined fallacy to mean a mistake in belief that is based on certain unsound argument.
This paper identifies the ten fallacies as they are obtained in the political arena, explain how each of the identified fallacies are being employed, and the reason for the application of these fallacies. It should be noted that fallacies are committed since people are basically concerned with achieving a particular goal without putting much interest in the means they use to achieve these ends.
Arguments are classified into two categories: the inductive and deductive arguments. While in a deductive argument, the premise completely supports the conclusion, it provides some incomplete degree of support for the conclusion in the inductive argument. A good argument occurs when premises provides the required degree of support for the conclusion.
Politicians and government officials are the popular basic proponents of fallacies. In the political arena, the means that the politicians use and their styles count more than the content, substance or the truth in their actions and statements. As long as the goals these politicians intend to achieve are possible using fallacies, they would not hesitate. Majorly, their goals include winning an election or passing a policy to their constituents. Finding fallacies in the political arena are usually very easy since they use them most of the time.
Unfortunately, the fallacies used in the political arena come with greater consequences compared to any field. For instance, politicians may acquire office through fallacy or enact economic policies through passing wrong policies to the public to consent to them, in such cases; the entire region represented by these politicians would suffer serious consequences due to the actions of the politicians. However, in their opinion, they would have achieved their goals (Lichbach & Zuckerman 298 – 318).
The fallacies of the political arena
Fallacy of appeal to authority
Appeal to authority is also referred to as fallacious appeal to authority, misuse of authority, inappropriate authority, questionable authority or Ad Verecundiam (Labossiere 3). The fallacy is usually committed when the politician in question is not eh legitimate authority on the said subject. Additionally, if the politician were not qualified to make reliable claims in a certain subject, then their argument would be fallacious (Labossiere 3.
Most politicians have employed this fallacy to achieve their goals. For instance, some politicians would make claims regarding the health or financial sector to the public. However, if these politicians were not experts in the fields that they have made the claims, and they are not the people in authority in these government departments, then this would be a fallacy. In this case, the politicians may employ the fallacies to help them pass policies in these departments that favor their interest.
Begging the question
It also known as circular reasoning or Petitio Principii. In this fallacy, the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true (Labossiere 17). Additionally, the premise can assume directly or indirectly that the conclusion is true (Labossiere 17). In this reasoning, it is considered fallacy since the conclusion is directly or indirectly assumed true. This assumption in the premise does not constitute evidence that this assumed conclusion is true. It is a commonplace knowledge that assuming things as true does not constitute evidence that these assertions and claims are true (Labossiere 17).
Politicians have employed this fallacy through different ways. For instance when passing policies, they would assume that since other nations have passed policies that consider the use and sale of bhang as illegal, then this must be illegal. I this case, the politicians make assumption that are untrue, but since they are general assumptions, the evidence they provide for these claims are also considered true. In the real sense, not all nations have prohibited bhang in their economies. These politicians use such fallacies in cases where they lack substantial evidence to pass policies they seek to serve their interest. For example, a politician recently passed legislation in one of the developing countries that controls the legal alcohol drinking hours by claiming that it is assumed people neglect their responsibilities while spending time in drinking dens.
Division fallacy
This fallacy is committed when an individual deduces that anything that is true of a whole must also be true of its constituents and justification for that deduction is not provided (Labossiere 23). There are two main types of the fallacy of division. The first type is committed when an individual argues that which is true of the whole must be true of the parts. Alternatively, it could be committed if the individual fails to give justification that the deduction with the required degree of evidence (Labossiere23). It should be noted that drawing conclusions about the parts of a whole based on the properties of the whole is usually fallacious. For instance, 4 is an even number, and 3 and 1 are parts of 4, therefore, deducing that 1 and 3 are also even numbers would be fallacious.
The second type of this fallacy can be committed if a person draws conclusion about properties of individual members of a class basing on the collective properties of the whole class, or if there is limited justification for the conclusion (Labossiere 23).
The most common fallacy that has been used by politicians is the segregation and classification of communities. They assert that certain counties are underprivileged or disadvantaged, therefore, they convince the policy makers that every member of these communities is underprivileged and should be given allowances equally. However, the fact is that not all the members of a given society are equally placed. Giving them equal compensation would infer that even the rich members of these societies would receive the same as the poor members
Ad Hominem
This Latin word means “against the ma or against the person” (Labossiere 1). In this category of fallacy, a claim is rejected based on some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the argument (Labossiere 1). The fallacy typically involves two steps. The first step begins with attacking against the person’s character, their circumstances, or their actions. The second step involves taking the attack as evidence against the claim presented by the person.
This fallacy is commonly employed in the political arena, especially during campaigns. Politicians attack each other’s agenda by judging their characters, circumstances or actions. For instance, her counterparts, who might claim that she would uphold feminism and oppress the men in her leadership, might challenge a feminist lawyer who is contesting for an elective position. Additionally, politicians who might claim they only oppose abortion because they are obedient to the catholic doctrine and do not consider the devastating effects of some pregnancies would rule a catholic union defending abortion unjust.
Fallacy of false dilemma
This fallacy is also known as the Black and White thinking. In this category of fallacy, a person may make a claim that in two arguments, if one is true then the other is false (Labossiere 24). This is considered fallacy since there could be options that if both the arguments were true, making inferences that one is false because the other is false would be incorrect. However, there are instances where this line of reasoning is not considered fallacious (Labossiere 24). For instance in case where there are only options in a situation, the only possibility in this case is that if one option is false, the other must be true. For example, a person is either dead or alive.
Propagandist politicians usually use this fallacy. For instance, if the government allocates some funds to the Christian community and does not do the same to the Muslim community of the same state in a financial period, some politicians would hypothesize this to imply that the government either favors the Christian or dislikes the Muslims. These politicians usually intend to incite the public in matters that might not be exactly true.
Fallacy of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
This fallacy is also referred to as “you too fallacy”. It is committed when the conclusion infers that a claim is either inconsistent with something else a person previously said, or if the persons actions are inconsistent with what they say (Labossiere 2). Even though a person might make inconsistent claims, this does not necessarily imply that these claims are false. However, these inconsistent claims cannot be true at the same time, but one of them can be true (Labossiere 2).
Politicians always play mind games and follow the actions and statements made by their rivals. These politicians would always refer to a past statement made by their counterparts if they notice any inconsistency. For instance, if a member of the house makes a claim in defending himself in the house then later makes a contradicting sentence, the other members of the house would consider him fallacious since they find inconsistency in the statements. Additionally, if a member of the house makes a statement about the areas they represent, as having done something to that community, then members ascertain that these statements are inconsistent with the actual actions in these areas, they would consider the member fallacious. Politicians majorly use this fallacy for defending their actions.
Fallacy of Two Wrongs Make a Right
This refers to a fallacy in which an individual makes gives justification of an action against people by emphasizing that the person would do the same thing to them, especially when the actions does not necessarily intend to prevent the latter from doing an action to the former (Labossiere 42). This reasoning is fallacious because an action would be wrong even if the other person also does the same.
For instance, a politician might decide to cheat in an election and rig against his opponents. These politicians always defend themselves that even if they could not have rigged their way into office, their opponents would have done the same.
Fallacy of questionable cause
This fallacy is based on the general idea, which asserts that it is an error in reasoning to make conclusions that one thing causes another since they are associated in a regular basis (Labossiere 35). This fallacy recognizes the fact that causation is a complex philosophical issue phenomenon that should not be left to such simple reasoning. Therefore, people need to take due care before drawing conclusions.
In the political arena, it is sometimes believed that some areas lack adequate schools, which would reduce the enrollment of students. This could be assumed so because the high number of learning institutions is associated with higher enrollments. However, this assumption ignores the fact that there are various determinants of school enrollment such as family life style and cultural values.
Genetic fallacy
In this line of reasoning, a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is perceived to be the evidence that discredits the claim itself (Labossiere 26). For instance, if a little claims that 2 + 3 =5, and the other claims that her parents brought her up believing that 2 + 3 = 45. It would be wrong to deduce that the latter is true since the claim is presented with an origin.
In the political arena, this fallacy is usually made in supporting claims that lack substantial evidence. For instance, the minister for education might make changes in the ministry saying that in their time, things were done in that manner. In this case, this minister would be ignoring the fact that things have changed since he last passed that level and people need to adjust.
Red herring fallacy
This is the last fallacy discussed in this paper. It asserts that an irrelevant topic is presented with the aim of diverting people’s attention from an original issue (Labossiere 36). In this fallacy, the main aim is to win an argument by diverting the attention of the interested parties to a completely new topic. However, it should be noted that changing the topic does not really count in arguing against a claim.
An example of its employment in the political arena, in a tax cut argument, a republican politician may suggest that they need to come up with strategies to show that they are stronger than the democrats are.
Works Cited:
Dr. Michael C. Labossiere. Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0. The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012. © Copyright 1995. Web 2004.
Brinton, Laurel J. The Structure of Modern English: A Linguistic Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 2000. Print.
Mark Irving Lichbach & Alan S. Zuckerman. Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure: Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Print.
