What fallacies, if any, are present in the following passage? Can you please give reasons for your answer, that is, if you say that a fallacy has been committed, then show where the fallacy occurred, and explain why you think it is a fallacy?
Background: In this passage, William Thorsell is arguing that the waging of war is necessary means of opposing tyrants such as Saddam Hussein. His piece,“The decisive Exercise of Power,” appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail for December 19, 1999. In the 1930’s the aversion to war in France and the United Kingdom was so pervasive that some pacifists preferred their own subjugation to resistance in the face of violence. Dandies in the best schools developed ….eloquent rationales for inaction and appeasement, even treason, to avoid the contest for power that was so obviously rising in Europe. They rejected the wisdom that good and evil are perpetually in conflict, and that it is only for food men to do nothing for evil men to triumph…..Remarkably, some of the leading nations in the world still don’t appear to “get is” when Saddam Hussein reappears. At root, it seems to be a matter of non-recognition. They just can’t see the man for who he is, just as many people just couldn’t see “Mr. Hitler” for who he was ( the limits of the parallel noted. If you cannot recognize your enemy, you will not defeat him, except by luck of circumstance, and that will rarely do.
I believe that the following fallacies have been made but I know I'm missing one.
The ‘attacking the person’ fallacy has been committed by calling those in the best schools dandies. This is a class related attack and constitutes a fallacy even if no independent evidence is available.
Also, the straw man fallacy has been committed since the author has misrepresented the premises of the opponent’s argument by saying that they developed, “eloquent rationales for inaction and appeasement, even treason, to avoid the contest for power”. He also states that his opponents did not conform to the belief that there is perpetual conflict between good and evil as well as that when good men do nothing, evil men win. The author has exaggerated the premises and has not refuted them adequately. We, as readers, are not given the truth regarding the premises of the opponent’s arguments.
1 answer
1 answer