Moral Fallacies In Argumentation

Moral fallacies in argumentation

The Oxford Dictionary (2010) defines fallacy as follows:
a) A mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
b) A failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
c) Faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.
All of us use fallacies from time to time. Depending on how conscious we are about our sentences and arguments, wemay be aware of the usage of fallacies when we try to explain something. Particularly, when we want to establish a logical point.
A fallacy is an easy way out to state an idea. But easy does not mean truthfulness. Fallacies are based on opinions, beliefs, rumors, and weak ideas we use to defend or attack an argument. Or simply, fallacies are employed to construct our logical thinking. Which, inturn, is a mistake. Most fallacies are based on the person’s morality. Therefore, these fallacies reflect the way the speaker perceives reality and, above all, the way argumentation is (de)formed through morality.
The main argumentative fallacies are:
Slippery Slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,...,X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:
If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers.
In this example, the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing.
HastyGeneralization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:
Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course.
In this example, the author is basing his evaluation of the entire course on only the first day, which is notoriously boring and full of housekeepingtasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend not one but several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B'must have caused 'A.' Example:
I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have made me sick.
In this example, the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill acrosscampus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

Genetic Fallacy: A conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:
The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler's army.
In this example the author is equating thecharacter of a car with the character of the people who built the car. However, the two are not inherently related.
Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:
Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.
Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, thatcoal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."
Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:
George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.
In this example, the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he...