Posted by Amanda on December 30, 1996 at 18:19:33:
In Reply to: Re: Plausible deniability and special pleading posted by Jason on December 30, 1996 at 15:20:12:
:
: : "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
I see your point. It appears that each definiton applies to a different situation. Lars' seems to apply to the use of such logic in law which is probably what you were looking for. I don't know enough about logic (yet) to answer this - I've been battling with syllogisms for far too long. It's possible I suppose that the same term is used for two separate definitions or that Albrecht may not be correct when using "double standard" and "special pleading" synonomously. After reading Lars' posting it does seem to me that his definition fits the term more appropriately so I'd put your money on that. If I find any other info along my travels I shall let you know.