Question

...
Kostas Oikonomou

Self-righteousness examples

I believe the examples given for the self-righteousness fallacy fit better the prejudicial language fallacy.

The self-righteousness fallacy examples are:

  1. Ricki: Do you think aborted fetuses have feelings?
    Jenni: Any honorable and kind person would have to say they do have feelings. So yes. 
  2. Jenni: Is a fetus a human being?
    Ricki: No, because I am not a monster and would never suggest killing an unwanted human being is okay.
  3. Jenni: Do you consider a fetus to be as valuable as a human being?
    Ricki: No, because I am not a monster and would never suggest killing an unwanted human being is okay.

And and example of prejudicial language examples is:

  1. All good Catholics know that impure thoughts are the work of the devil, and should be resisted at all costs.

I say that the first 3 examples doesn't fit the Self-Righteousness Fallacy because no intentions are present in the arguments. While there are three claims ("fetuses have feelings", "fetuses are human beings", "fetuses are as valuable as a human being") which are supported by attaching moral value into believing those claims.

I also have a problem with the second example of prejudicial language that says:
"Students who want to succeed in life will do their homework each and every night."
That's only a belief and could be classified as factually incorrect. I would expect something more to it in order to match the prejudicial language - something like
"All nice people know that successful students do their homework each and every night"
The analogy for the first example would be:
(simple claim)
Impure thoughts are the work of the devil, and should be resisted at all costs.

(prejudicial language)
"All good Catholics know that impure thoughts are the work of the devil, and should be resisted at all costs."

I think a self-righteous example would be something like:
"I want my child to be a law-abiding citizen, therefore it's justified to physically abuse my child."

or 

"I want the best for my child so don't you dare telling me that hitting him is harmful."

Do you agree?
asked on Friday, Dec 30, 2022 02:46:23 PM by Kostas Oikonomou

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
0
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

These are some good points. I wonder what Dr Bo thinks.

I guess he might say that the examples show "implied intent", namely that to be an honourable and kind person (1), a non-monster (2, 3). But I don't know about the strength of that argument.

posted on Friday, Dec 30, 2022 03:54:56 PM
...
0
Kostas Oikonomou writes:

[To TrappedPrior (RotE)]

Ok, but then what's the difference between the two types of fallacy? Whenever you would commit Prejudicial Fallacy, since you would use terms of moral value, you would always imply a good intent. Therefore whenever you would commit Prejudicial Language you would also commit Righteousness Fallacy or Self-Righteousness Fallacy. So why bother then distinguish the two (or three)?

EDIT: As I see it the difference between the two fallacies is on whether in your argument you cite a specific moral person (righteousness) or you choose to use adjectives that carry moral goodness(prejudicial language). Righteousness fallacies are a subcase of Identity Fallacy or Genetic fallacy (another pair of fallacies that I don't know their distinction) 

[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Dec 31, 2022 10:33:44 AM
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

I will have to look at this in detail when I start the revisions for the next version, which should be in the coming weeks. Thank you.

posted on Monday, Jan 02, 2023 07:37:37 AM

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

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers