Informal Fallacy: Double Standards


The special pleading fallacy, also known as "double standards" or "selective adherence," is a logical inconsistency where an individual applies different rules or standards to themselves than to others without proper justification. This fallacy occurs when someone tries to exempt their own position from critical examination by making excuses or justifications that are not based on sound reasoning. Special pleading can be a subtle form of dishonesty because it undermines the principles of fairness and consistency in argumentation.

Examples: 

  1. A defendant may argue that their difficult upbringing should excuse their criminal behavior, even if there is no direct causal link between the two. This type of special pleading can undermine the justice system by allowing individuals to evade accountability for their actions.
  2. A company argues for special tax breaks not because of any broader economic principle, but simply because it would benefit them financially.
  3. A policymaker who advocates for deregulation in sectors where they have personal investments, while supporting strict regulations in others.
  4. A company might argue for tax exemptions on the basis that it creates jobs, while simultaneously advocating for a free market without government intervention.
  5. A country advocating for free trade agreements to benefit its exports while imposing protectionist policies to shield its domestic industries from competition.
  6. A company claiming its practices are exceptional and should not be subject to industry regulations that apply to all competitors. 
  7. In psychology, a practitioner may disregard standard protocols for treatment, arguing their method is special without empirical support. 
  8. In economics, one might argue for special subsidies or exemptions from market rules without demonstrating why they should be treated differently from others. 
  9. In law, a lawyer might argue for their client's exemption from legal consequences based on personal circumstances, not applicable to others.
  10. In politics, a politician may claim their actions are justified under circumstances where they would criticize others for doing the same.

Conclusion:

The special pleading fallacy is a pervasive form of faulty reasoning that undermines the principles of fairness and consistency in argumentation. Whether it occurs in politics, religion, science, personal relationships, or legal contexts, special pleading can weaken an argument and hinder rational discourse. By being aware of this fallacy and striving to apply consistent standards in our reasoning, we can promote more honest and constructive dialogue in all areas of life. These instances demonstrate the inconsistency of applying principles selectively to gain an advantage or to justify a particular stance, which is the essence of special pleading. This fallacy is problematic because it undermines fair and consistent application of economic policies and can lead to biased decision-making that favors particular interests over the common good.

Points to Ponder:

Special pleading can be a subtle form of dishonesty because it undermines the principles of fairness and consistency in argumentation.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CELL: FUNCTIONS

Deserts: Classifications

Earth: Hydrosphere