Can you outsmart the fallacy that divided a nation? - Elizabeth Cox
video description
Since the core idea is that compromise on a moral issue is just as bad as the making an immoral action, doesn t this make it extremely easy to justify subjective zealous arguments?
For example, it a person believes it is morally right to overthrow the government no matter what, they could use this logic to refuse to listen to any objections since they view a compromise of yes governments are bad but they can be beneficial as a morally bankrupt compromise.
How can we make sure we do not fall to this fallacy while still remaining open to dialogue on things our own morals may not agree with?
Date: 2022-02-01
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Cole
This is a fallacy I might disagree with. To make my point let s look at a less unambiguous case. in the United States Gun control is a hot button issue, the far far right would like to see a world where anyone could own any gun and the far far left would like to see a world where no one owns guns and both see the other as morally indefensible. (viewpoints are simplified for the point of this post and you could make the same argument for abortion, immigration, ) Through the powers of compromise we have gun control laws that still allow people to have guns but prevent people from legally owning fully automatic machine guns or other military grade weapons. I d say though the power of compromise here society is better as a whole from both sides prospectivas(though both would like to go farther) but if they were to pay complete attention to this fallacy these laws wouldn t exist and it would be a winner take all in one direction or another (which many moderates on both sides would disagree with regardless of victor)
reply
This is a fallacy I might disagree with. To make my point let s look at a less unambiguous case. in the United States Gun control is a hot button issue, the far far right would like to see a world where anyone could own any gun and the far far left would like to see a world where no one owns guns and both see the other as morally indefensible. (viewpoints are simplified for the point of this post and you could make the same argument for abortion, immigration, ) Through the powers of compromise we have gun control laws that still allow people to have guns but prevent people from legally owning fully automatic machine guns or other military grade weapons. I d say though the power of compromise here society is better as a whole from both sides prospectivas(though both would like to go farther) but if they were to pay complete attention to this fallacy these laws wouldn t exist and it would be a winner take all in one direction or another (which many moderates on both sides would disagree with regardless of victor)
reply
ted_ed
Not trying to get into a moral argument but from a practical perspective try to take the middle ground between reality and idealism. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that most successful attempts at democracy started with the Magna Carta in England shifting to a constitutional monarchy, then shifted to landed gentry in the United States then shifted to all white men all men and finally all adults.
On the other hand, revolutions that went straight from the divine right of kings to complete egalitarian such as the French, Russian, Venezuela that went from strong monarchy to complete egalitarian actually ended up worse and there became shifts back towards dictatorship.
People view the status quo as normal and for whatever reason, drastic changes tend to cause societal problems and sometimes cause a counter push to revert said changes.
reply
Not trying to get into a moral argument but from a practical perspective try to take the middle ground between reality and idealism. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that most successful attempts at democracy started with the Magna Carta in England shifting to a constitutional monarchy, then shifted to landed gentry in the United States then shifted to all white men all men and finally all adults.
On the other hand, revolutions that went straight from the divine right of kings to complete egalitarian such as the French, Russian, Venezuela that went from strong monarchy to complete egalitarian actually ended up worse and there became shifts back towards dictatorship.
People view the status quo as normal and for whatever reason, drastic changes tend to cause societal problems and sometimes cause a counter push to revert said changes.
reply
PJ
so this videos point is that it's better to start the civil war the moment you come to a roadblock you can't overcome instead of kicking the can down the road until an outside problem causes the situation to evolve past a negotioable balance? as much as I think that a civil war was inevitable in the US with how ridiculous the economic and political system was and still is I can't defend the reasoning that politicians who managed to agree the deal that might have saved the lives of their friends and family back in the early 1800s and delayed a civil war were in the wrong. doing everything humanely possible to avert a catastrophe for as long as possible is the duty of every politician. doing everything possible to avert war the duty of every diplomat.
reply
so this videos point is that it's better to start the civil war the moment you come to a roadblock you can't overcome instead of kicking the can down the road until an outside problem causes the situation to evolve past a negotioable balance? as much as I think that a civil war was inevitable in the US with how ridiculous the economic and political system was and still is I can't defend the reasoning that politicians who managed to agree the deal that might have saved the lives of their friends and family back in the early 1800s and delayed a civil war were in the wrong. doing everything humanely possible to avert a catastrophe for as long as possible is the duty of every politician. doing everything possible to avert war the duty of every diplomat.
reply
k0p1k4
well, this fallacy (middle ground fallacy) is a natural es necessary consequence of another logical fallacy, the so-called false dilemma fallacy. or to be more precise, both follow from the other since they form some sort of duality.
in case of the false dilemma fallacy there are seemingly two options (meanwhile the optimum is in-between the apparent options, however, in case of the middle ground fallacy the optimum is seemingly in-between the proposed options (meanwhile it is not.
if only one of these fallacies existed then the other wouldn't exist since we would know that the optimum is ALWAYS either in-between the options or at one of the ends of the spectrum. in order to have uncertainty and ambiguity both fallacies have to exist.
reply
well, this fallacy (middle ground fallacy) is a natural es necessary consequence of another logical fallacy, the so-called false dilemma fallacy. or to be more precise, both follow from the other since they form some sort of duality.
in case of the false dilemma fallacy there are seemingly two options (meanwhile the optimum is in-between the apparent options, however, in case of the middle ground fallacy the optimum is seemingly in-between the proposed options (meanwhile it is not.
if only one of these fallacies existed then the other wouldn't exist since we would know that the optimum is ALWAYS either in-between the options or at one of the ends of the spectrum. in order to have uncertainty and ambiguity both fallacies have to exist.
reply
Jessica
I do love a good compromise, but there are moral things you cannot compromise on without one side losing way more. If I tried to mediate between wolves and sheep, any middle ground where the wolves can get to the sheep means the sheep will be killed and eaten. By trying to argue both sides even when the wolves clearly want to hurt and eliminate the sheep, I would be saying that wolves have just as much right to kill the sheep as the sheep have the right to live, which is ridiculous. Not only is it morally wrong to allow the wolves to kill the sheep, but the wolves have way more power than the sheep do and the sheep were always in need of more protection than the wolves.
reply
I do love a good compromise, but there are moral things you cannot compromise on without one side losing way more. If I tried to mediate between wolves and sheep, any middle ground where the wolves can get to the sheep means the sheep will be killed and eaten. By trying to argue both sides even when the wolves clearly want to hurt and eliminate the sheep, I would be saying that wolves have just as much right to kill the sheep as the sheep have the right to live, which is ridiculous. Not only is it morally wrong to allow the wolves to kill the sheep, but the wolves have way more power than the sheep do and the sheep were always in need of more protection than the wolves.
reply
ylhajee
'Meatless Mondays' are a great example nowadays. We don't need animal products to be healthy and so the industrialized abuse and killing of non-human animals is indefensible. 'Thwy are just animals so we can do whatever we want to them' has the same logic to it as 'they are just blacks so we can do whatever we want to them'. 'Meatless Mondays' recognizes that there is a problem with abusing animals but proposes a compromise solution which is still horrific. The end of animal exploitation should be the goal, and anything less should be seen as only a stepping stone in that direction, not the destination.
reply
'Meatless Mondays' are a great example nowadays. We don't need animal products to be healthy and so the industrialized abuse and killing of non-human animals is indefensible. 'Thwy are just animals so we can do whatever we want to them' has the same logic to it as 'they are just blacks so we can do whatever we want to them'. 'Meatless Mondays' recognizes that there is a problem with abusing animals but proposes a compromise solution which is still horrific. The end of animal exploitation should be the goal, and anything less should be seen as only a stepping stone in that direction, not the destination.
reply
echoven
Are we abandoning ALL pretension of education now TED? Do you have any idea how insane this video comes across as? One of the animators on TEDed came into work one day and decided to enshrine an argument they've been having in their own head with a strawman. Points made in video are completely ahistorical of course, and conjecturous, also perhaps I'm imagining it but it seems as though the point of this video is to say that the civil war should have happened SOONER and with MORE BLOODSHED?
reply
Are we abandoning ALL pretension of education now TED? Do you have any idea how insane this video comes across as? One of the animators on TEDed came into work one day and decided to enshrine an argument they've been having in their own head with a strawman. Points made in video are completely ahistorical of course, and conjecturous, also perhaps I'm imagining it but it seems as though the point of this video is to say that the civil war should have happened SOONER and with MORE BLOODSHED?
reply
Luci
Just as if, for example, some sort of medicine is necessary to protect the population from a dangerous virus that will otherwise continue to spread and mutate at rapid rates.
But some in that population want the right to not take it, even thought that needlessly endangers others.
So a compromise is made and no mandate happens, allowing those who don t want to take it to continue their dangerous negligence
reply
Just as if, for example, some sort of medicine is necessary to protect the population from a dangerous virus that will otherwise continue to spread and mutate at rapid rates.
But some in that population want the right to not take it, even thought that needlessly endangers others.
So a compromise is made and no mandate happens, allowing those who don t want to take it to continue their dangerous negligence
reply
Pratik
Theoretical arguments are much easier but when it comes to practical world these arguments doesn t translate well. The moral dilemma should be when is a war justified? and it should be answered by lions and not the donkeys. In some arguments like slavery and genocide war could be justified. But middle ground fallacies are important in most other arguments to avoid wars.
reply
Theoretical arguments are much easier but when it comes to practical world these arguments doesn t translate well. The moral dilemma should be when is a war justified? and it should be answered by lions and not the donkeys. In some arguments like slavery and genocide war could be justified. But middle ground fallacies are important in most other arguments to avoid wars.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
