X
Logical  Fallacy: a error in reasoning
  (adj)     (noun)

(beta)
List Of Fallacies
Play More
Score:
0


About This Game

Feedback Here
Or On Facebook

Statement #o137 Discussion

2 comments (1 thead)
All Discussions

Below is the statement as it appears with the fallacy marked as correct. You can see the totals of most frequent responses to this statement. And after reading the any discussion going on below, you can select your choice(s) for the correct answer. For now, whoever posts each statement can update corrections.
Bill and Jill are married. Both Bill and Jill have put in a full day at the office. Their dog, Rover, has knocked over all the plants in one room and has strewn the dirt all over the carpet. When they return, Bill tells Jill that it is her job to clean up after the dog. When she protests, he says that he has put in a full day at the office and is too tired to clean up after the dog.
Special Pleading
Category: Fallacies of Relevance (Red Herrings)

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

  1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumstance(s) C.
  2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
  3. Therefore A is exempt from S.
The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:
  1. Barbara accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.
  2. Although she murdered Bill, Barbara claims she is an exception because she really would not like going to prison.
  3. Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.
This is obviously a blatant case of special pleading. Since no one likes going to prison, this cannot justify the claim that Barbara alone should be exempt from punishment.

The Principle of Relevant Difference
From a philosophic standpoint, the fallacy of Special Pleading is violating a well accepted principle, namely the Principle of Relevant Difference. According to this principle, two people can be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them. This principle is a reasonable one. After all, it would not be particularly rational to treat two people differently when there is no relevant difference between them. As an extreme case, it would be very odd for a parent to insist on making one child wear size 5 shoes and the other wear size 7 shoes when the children are both size 5.

It should be noted that the Principle of Relevant Difference does allow people to be treated differently. For example, if one employee was a slacker and the other was a very productive worker the boss would be justified in giving only the productive worker a raise. This is because the productivity of each is a relevant difference between them. Since it can be reasonable to treat people differently, there will be cases in which some people will be exempt from the usual standards. For example, if it is Bill's turn to cook dinner and Bill is very ill, it would not be a case of Special Pleading if Bill asked to be excused from making dinner (this, of course, assumes that Bill does not accept a standard that requires people to cook dinner regardless of the circumstances). In this case Bill is offering a good reason as to why he should be exempt and, most importantly, it would be a good reason for anyone who was ill and not just Bill.

While determining what counts as a legitimate basis for exemption can be a difficult task, it seems clear that claiming you are exempt because you are you does not provide such a legitimate basis. Thus, unless a clear and relevant justification for exemption can be presented, a person cannot claim to be exempt.

There are cases which are similar to instances of Special Pleading in which a person is offering at least some reason why he should be exempt but the reason is not good enough to warrant the exemption. This could be called "Failed Pleading." For example, a professor may claim to be exempt from helping the rest of the faculty move books to the new department office because it would be beneath his dignity. However, this is not a particularly good reason and would hardly justify his exemption. If it turns out that the real "reason" a person is claiming exemption is that they simply take themselves to be exempt, then they would be committing Special Pleading. Such cases will be fairly common. After all, it is fairly rare for adults to simply claim they are exempt without at least some pretense of justifying the exemption.

Click For Fallacy Description

 311 Total Answer Attempts   54%
 168 Correctly Popped Fallacies
 143 Incorrectly Un/Popped
( Random Image )

Most Common Responses

 
168 - Special Pleading
15 - Appeal to Pity
10 - Appeal to Popularity
8 - Red Herring
8 - Misleading Vividness
7 - Peer Pressure
7 - Circumstantial Ad Hominem
7 - Ignoring a Common Cause
6 - Appeal to Authority
6 - Fallacy of Division
5 - Appeal to Emotion
5 - Confusing Cause and Effect
5 - Appeal to Common Practice
5 - Personal Attack
4 - Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
4 - Biased Generalization
4 - Genetic Fallacy
3 - Ad Hominem
3 - Poisoning the Well
3 - False Dilemma
3 - Begging the Question
3 - Appeal to Ridicule
3 - Appeal to Spite
3 - Hasty Generalization
2 - Burden of Proof
2 - Middle Ground
2 - Appeal to Flattery
2 - Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief
1 - Fallacy of Composition
1 - Gambler's Fallacy
1 - Relativist Fallacy
1 - Slippery Slope
1 - Post Hoc
1 - Appeal to Belief
1 - Guilt by Association
1 - Appeal to Novelty

Likes for Correct Answers

Show all on page ↑

Show All Comments On One Page
Threads Sorted by Date - Sort by Likes
+
Common Cause
The reasons that the man used to justify not cleaning up the mess are the same for the woman; and by acting like he was the only one who worked all day he was ignoring a common cause.

5.4.15 19:42 by triviummethodman
1      0

  + Reply 1 comment downstream. Please read it before replying.



+









Play Game - Fallacy List - Add Statements - Player Collections - Discussions

Login - High Scores - About - Trivium - Links - Contact

Donate To DontFallacy.Me - Support Dr. Labossiere

Creative Commons, 2014, Wiki World Order (Morgan Lesko)


* Fallacious statements are usually paired with a random image of a person who never spoke those words.
This free site is for educational purposes, studying intellectual dishonesty. The images are being used under fair use. Sunflower by robstephaustrali. Donald Rumsfeld image owned by Associated Press.