Logical Fallacy: Arguments that cut both ways

[zdon011]

Dear CAF members,

I’ve encountered this argument several times:

The Church/legal system doesn’t ‘pick on’ immoral heterosexual behaviour as much as it ‘picks on’ homosexual behaviour, so it should leave homosexuals alone.’

The fact is that this argument could cut both ways: i.e. it could also be used to say that ALL sexual sin, ‘gay’ or ‘straight’, should be equally stigmatized.

Does anyone know if arguments that ‘cut both ways’ constitute a fallacy in formal logic? If so, is there a formal name for this fallacy?

God bless,
zdon

 

[GEddie]

Dear CAF members,

I’ve encountered this argument several times:

The Church/legal system doesn’t ‘pick on’ immoral heterosexual behaviour as much as it ‘picks on’ homosexual behaviour, so it should leave homosexuals alone.’

The fact is that this argument could cut both ways: i.e. it could also be used to say that ALL sexual sin, ‘gay’ or ‘straight’, should be equally stigmatized.

Does anyone know if arguments that ‘cut both ways’ constitute a fallacy in formal logic? If so, is there a formal name for this fallacy?

God bless,
zdon

NB. I haven’t taken logic in years, so feel free to point to errors that I make, just please be nice about it:

The argument you quote has unstated premises, which are not assumable.

If the unstated premises are false, the argument collapses. In fact, the stated premises can be used to run the argument in reverse, since the logical connection is unsupported. A properly constructed argument cannot be used in this way.

P1: The Church penalizes homosexual behavior.

P2: The Church does not penalize heterosexual sin to the same extent.

(Unstated 1: Both should be penalized equally in order to be fair, as both are sins.)

(Unstated 2: The Church should always act in a way that the general society perceives as fair.)

Q: Therefore, [to be perceived as acting fairly] the Church ought to leave homosexuals alone.

The problem is that U1 and U2 are neither stated nor accurate. Homosexuality and straight immorality, while both sins, are not equal in “wrongness”, because the first is an unnatueal abuse of the human body, while the second is natural, if immoral. Therefore it is wrong to assume that both should be equally castigated (although a little more castigation of straight sinnin’ would not be amiss).

And in U2, it is wrong to assume that the Church needs to follow the general perception of fairness. Its task is to lead the general society, not imitate it.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JohnDamian]

The Church/legal system doesn’t ‘pick on’ immoral heterosexual behaviour as much as it ‘picks on’ homosexual behaviour, so it should leave homosexuals alone.’

Clearly; with the concentration on both contraception and abortion there is a certain effort being given to the morality of heterosexual behaviour.

Whilst it may appear that the Church is more vocal on homosexuality (isn’t it more vocal on the effects of abortion - a heterosexual problem?) it does not mean that the Church does not have the same rule for both homosexual and heterosexual persons; and that rule is;

Do not sin against the sixth commandment - IE don’t masturbate; sodomise; adulterate; fornicate; use contraception; have sex outside of wedlock; etc. etc. etc.

If this (or any other grave matter) is done with full consent and knowlege then the person is in Mortal sin and may not recieve communion. The persons sexual orientation is entirely irrelevant to their committing evil acts.

 

[JDaniel]

Clearly; with the concentration on both contraception and abortion there is a certain effort being given to the morality of heterosexual behaviour.

Whilst it may appear that the Church is more vocal on homosexuality (isn’t it more vocal on the effects of abortion - a heterosexual problem?) it does not mean that the Church does not have the same rule for both homosexual and heterosexual persons; and that rule is;

Do not sin against the sixth commandment - IE don’t masturbate; sodomise; adulterate; fornicate; use contraception; have sex outside of wedlock; etc. etc. etc.

If this (or any other grave matter) is done with full consent and knowledge then the person is in Mortal sin and may not receive communion. The persons sexual orientation is entirely irrelevant to their committing evil acts.

John:

Many of us - as you just did - keep reminding the rest of us (and, rightly so) that the Catholic Church is not opposed to homosexual people. It is opposed to homosexual sexual acts. There’s a huge difference.

Anal fornication is problematic no matter whether the participants are hetero- or homo-sexual. Besides it being an act that is not open to life, it may well be an act that is more open to death.

Also, a Mortal sin is one that will keep us not only from communion, but also, from Heaven. Furthermore, it is insufficient to just receive false absolution, one must confess with true contrition. God knows our hearts.

God bless,
jd

 

[zdon011]

Dear posters,

While I appreciate all responses this thread has received, only the first poster addressed the original question: whether arguments that ‘cut both ways’ constitute a fallacy in formal logic. I am especially interested in knowing if there a formal name for this fallacy.

The primary purpose of this thread is to try and gain an answer to that question. The topic of homosexuality was ONLY brought up as an EXAMPLE, in case posters did not fully understand the question.

There is already a proliferation of threads on that topic elsewhere on this forum. I posted this thread under ‘Philosophy’ and not in the ‘Social Justice’ section, precisely for the purpose of avoiding irrelevant, unedifying, and tedious discussions on sexual morality.

Pax tecum,
zdon

 

[chrysostim83]

Cutting both ways is more a sign that something is wrong with an argument than an actual fallacy in itself. At least, this is how it would work in a theoretical argument, i.e., an argument about what is true rather than what is to be done: if some conjunction of premises P “implies” a true conclusion CT and a false conclusion CF, than it is clear that either the implication is unreal, or P is false. In the first case, the argument relies on a formal fallacy and in the second it merely relies on untrue premises. Either way, the argument will have no further defect which could be called “cutting both ways.” I suspect this conclusion holds for practical arguments as well, but I don’t know for sure.

 

[stenlis]

Dear CAF members,

I’ve encountered this argument several times:

The Church/legal system doesn’t ‘pick on’ immoral heterosexual behaviour as much as it ‘picks on’ homosexual behaviour, so it should leave homosexuals alone.’

The fact is that this argument could cut both ways: i.e. it could also be used to say that ALL sexual sin, ‘gay’ or ‘straight’, should be equally stigmatized.

Does anyone know if arguments that ‘cut both ways’ constitute a fallacy in formal logic? If so, is there a formal name for this fallacy?

God bless,
zdon

This is not a formal logical argument and it should not be judged as such. It’s not building up conclusions upon premises. It simply points out a common sense principle of double standard - i.e. that the religious authorities are treating homosexuals harsher than heterosexual sin offenders. This is not to say that the approach of religious authorities is illogical either but rather that it is unfair.

 

[JDaniel]

Dear CAF members,

I’ve encountered this argument several times:

The Church/legal system doesn’t ‘pick on’ immoral heterosexual behaviour as much as it ‘picks on’ homosexual behaviour, so it should leave homosexuals alone.’

The fact is that this argument could cut both ways: i.e. it could also be used to say that ALL sexual sin, ‘gay’ or ‘straight’, should be equally stigmatized.

Does anyone know if arguments that ‘cut both ways’ constitute a fallacy in formal logic? If so, is there a formal name for this fallacy?

God bless,
zdon

Most likely, it would be a sort of slant off the Fallacy of Appeal to Common Practice.

“X” = a specific item of “focus,” or “common practice”
“Y” = the largest segment of something, such as a population, “Y” + “Z”
“Z” = the smallest segment of “Y” + “Z”

P1: Church/state do not focus on “Y,” with regard to “X,” to a great extent.
P2: Church/state do focus on “Z,” with regard to “X,” to a great extent.
P3: Therefore, Church/state should be distributively fairer, in their application of “X” to “Z”.

Well, since P2 does not prove P3, it is nothing more than (possibly) an emotional wish. P3 might be nice, but there is no imperative that it be undertaken in the population- at least according to the syllogism.

The best I could come up with.

God bless,
jd

 

[zdon011]

Most likely, it would be a sort of slant off the Fallacy of Appeal to Common Practice.
…
The best I could come up with.

Thank you for your efforts, JDaniel.

I’ve heard that this type of argument has been called a ‘double-edged sword’. Crude name, but it’ll do.
Based on the specific content, it might also qualify as a ‘false dilemma’ or ‘special pleading’, both of which are fallacies.

God bless,
zdon