 |
| The fifth of six automotive repair shops since Wednesday and my Toyota is still not repaired. My Dad stated I should take it to Toyota, even as it is likely more expensive. No money spent as of yet. Toyota may be next... |
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Cited
'a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter' Blackburn (7).
From the qualified statement to the unqualified (statement, my add). (7).
The fallacy of taking out a needed qualification. (7).
Also known as 'converse fallacy of the accident'. (7).
'If it is always permissible to kill in war, then it is always permissible to kill'. (7).
I would question even the qualified statement in the example.
It is permissible to kill willing opposing combatants.
It is not permissible to kill unwilling opposing combatants (surrendered or injured).
It is not permissible to kill civilians.
Therefore, it is not always permissible to kill in war.
However, for the example listed, it is not always permissible to kill because warfare operates with a different set of legal and ethical rules than does non-warfare.
Blackburn writes that the accident fallacy is
'a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid ' (7).
From the unqualified statement to the statement qualified. (7).
Blackburn writes that is an (alleged) fallacy. (7).
Arguing from the general case to the specific, particular case. (7).
He lists as example: 'If some snakes are harmless then some snakes in this bag are harmless.' (7).
I take it that philosophically, one should be careful in the diagnosis of accident fallacy, as it may not always be so.
Pirie explains that this fallacy assumes the 'freak features of an exceptional case are enough to accept rejection of the general rule'. (33).
Almost every generalization could be rejected because of a possible accidental case it does not cover.
But to always maintain this is the fallacy of accident. (33).
It is fallacious to treat a general, qualified statement as if it is unqualified. (33). The author states that it is a fallacy that appeals to anarchists because it appears to overturn general rules. (33).
General rules with a few exceptions.
 |
| Sydney: Google+ |
