Posted by Jason on December 30, 1996 at 15:20:12:
In Reply to: Re: Plausible deniability and special pleading posted by Amanda on December 30, 1996 at 03:49:46:
: "The double standard fallacy operates by changing the descriptive system used from one case to another in order to invoke two different sets of values or judgements and to get the hearer to respond differently in two similar situations. A typical example concerns the corporate executive who lectures to the Rotary Club luncheon on one day about the evils of government intervention in free enterprise. The next day he vigorously lobbies for governement legislation to protect his products from "unfair" competition by foreign manufacturers, conveniently sidestepping the fact that American consumers will pay more for his products than for the foreign-made ones if the government grants his demands. What is sauce for the goose is definitely not sauce for the gander in the fallacy of the double standard, also known to logicians as the fallacy of special pleading.
: A story concerning a small town preacher illustrates how the double standard attitude can backfire. He harangued the congregation with "...and I say to you, if any man in this room has committed adultery, his tongue shall cleave to the woof of his mowf!"
: Man, that's funny!
Thanks. I understand the definition you gave but this is somewhat different
than the example Lars gave. Maybe logicians have other definitions for special
pleading. In Lars's example, special pleading is an appeal to emotion. In your
example, special pleading is when a person makes inconsistent or contradictory
claims. Is there some connection between the two definitions that I'm not
grasping?
- Jason