Question

...
Philip

You should've thought of that

When someone complains about the consequences of their actions, they often get told that they should've thought of that earlier. Is that a fallacy by any chance? Because I don't think it's reasonable to always expect someone to think of everything that can potentially happen, especially in the heat of the moment.

asked on Wednesday, Feb 23, 2022 06:24:26 AM by Philip

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
1
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

It could be the historian's fallacy, if there was no reasonable possibility the person could have known the consequences. This is because you would then be faulting them for not taking into account information that they simply did not have, which is unfair (and fallacious).

Sometimes there is such a possibility:

Constance:  You shouldn't have done 40 in a 20 zone. If you'd been more sensible, you wouldn't have lost your license.

Hannah:  Shut up! I wasn't even going that fast. It was more like 25. Or something.

Constance: Uh huh. You sure about that?

Hannah should have known that speeding would get her in trouble, but she did it anyway.

Jennifer:  Maybe dating Chad was a bad idea. I mean, he did end up cheating on you.

Shirley:  How was I supposed to know he'd turn out to be a gigantic manwhore?

Jennifer:  Eh, well...he gave off bad vibes, I suppose. But I didn't think you'd accept 'bad vibes' as evidence of him being no good for you.

It is impossible for Shirley to have accurately predicted her partner's philandering.

Basically, if the consequences are the logical 'end-result' of the action, we can say "shoulda thought about that!" But if not, it's far more tenuous as to whether we can assert that the person should have known better.

posted on Wednesday, Feb 23, 2022 06:33:15 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book. 

Take the Online Course

Answers

...
Shawn
1

I see this as an example of hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along phenomenon.  Also referred to as or creeping determinism. It is a common tendency for people to perceive past events as having been more predictable than they actually were. Wikipedia has a good entry here
answered on Wednesday, Feb 23, 2022 07:10:59 AM by Shawn

Shawn Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Bo Bennett, PhD
1

I would say it is bordering on the historian’s fallacy if not flat out the fallacy.
answered on Wednesday, Feb 23, 2022 07:00:01 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments