“Burning fossil fuels is environmentally irresponsible!”
EDIT: Are these not Worst Arguments in the World? I have heard arguments for gun control that don’t specify why being in the class “weapons” makes guns subject to additional restrictions. I have also seen the environment or nature treated as a sanctified moral value.
An important part of WAitW is that it uses an atypical member of a category to attach to it the rejection of a typical member of the category. Both abortion and death penalty are atypical members of the “murder” category (if they are), and associating them with “murder” is trying to associate them with the connotation of the “typical” murder.
Guns are quite the typical weapon. They are not border-line weapons like a kitchen knife or a hammer, they are not military grade weapons. Saying “guns are weapons!” doesn’t try to associate guns with something different, it doesn’t add much to the debate, but it doesn’t carry the same attempt to sneak in connotations as “abortion is murder!” is.
For “Burning fossil fuels is environmentally irresponsible!” it’s also quite different. “Environmentally irresponsible” is more a description, a feature that “burning fossil fuels” has (or doesn’t have, but that’s another issue), than a broad category in which we are trying to tie “burning fossil fuels”.
Not every “A is B” satisfies the definition of “the worst argument in the world” (truly a horrible name for a fallacy which should be replaced by something shorter, more descriptive and less exaggerating). “A is B, therefore A is C” qualifies as the discussed fallacy if
A belongs to the category B as far as technical/denotational meaning of B is considered,
using the technical meaning, not all B are C,
most (or most typical / available) members of B are C and therefore B has C in connotations, and
all C-relevant information about A is known, screening off potential C-relevant information about A coming from its membership in B.
In “burning fossil fuels (A) is environmentally irresponsible (B) [and therefore is bad] (C)”
holds
is subjective but for many audiences fails (i.e. “irresponsible” means “likely to cause bad outcomes”, which makes the whole category tautologically bad)
is problematic, since the denotational and connotational meaning of B aren’t different (badness-wise)
fails, since presumably the listener doesn’t know about A’s environmental irresponsibility
The argument may be fallacious if the listener doesn’t care about the environment but is tricked into accepting the badness of A based on connotations of “irresponsible”, but that isn’t exactly the fallacy described in the OP.
In “guns (A) are weapons (B) [and therefore should be banned] (C)”
holds
holds if the listener agrees that all weapons should be banned, else fails
depends on the listener’s idea of a typical weapon, if it is a hydrogen bomb, then (3) holds, if it is a knife, (3) fails, if it is a gun, we are building a circular argument
probably holds
So this argument may qualify, but it is so obviously tautological that I have problems imagining someone actually using it.
“firearms with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are assault weapons (and therefore should be banned)” seems to be more along the lines of arguments I’ve actually seen. I probably oversimplified in my head when I wrote the first post. Of course, having a Federal statute that happened to define firearms in that way might have directly led to such arguments after the ban expired, but it’s probably appropriate to label some laws as having “The Worst Legal Categorization in the World” as well. What if banning firearms with magazines holding more than 9 rounds would have saved even one extra life?
“Guns are weapons!”
“Burning fossil fuels is environmentally irresponsible!”
EDIT: Are these not Worst Arguments in the World? I have heard arguments for gun control that don’t specify why being in the class “weapons” makes guns subject to additional restrictions. I have also seen the environment or nature treated as a sanctified moral value.
An important part of WAitW is that it uses an atypical member of a category to attach to it the rejection of a typical member of the category. Both abortion and death penalty are atypical members of the “murder” category (if they are), and associating them with “murder” is trying to associate them with the connotation of the “typical” murder.
Guns are quite the typical weapon. They are not border-line weapons like a kitchen knife or a hammer, they are not military grade weapons. Saying “guns are weapons!” doesn’t try to associate guns with something different, it doesn’t add much to the debate, but it doesn’t carry the same attempt to sneak in connotations as “abortion is murder!” is.
For “Burning fossil fuels is environmentally irresponsible!” it’s also quite different. “Environmentally irresponsible” is more a description, a feature that “burning fossil fuels” has (or doesn’t have, but that’s another issue), than a broad category in which we are trying to tie “burning fossil fuels”.
Not every “A is B” satisfies the definition of “the worst argument in the world” (truly a horrible name for a fallacy which should be replaced by something shorter, more descriptive and less exaggerating). “A is B, therefore A is C” qualifies as the discussed fallacy if
A belongs to the category B as far as technical/denotational meaning of B is considered,
using the technical meaning, not all B are C,
most (or most typical / available) members of B are C and therefore B has C in connotations, and
all C-relevant information about A is known, screening off potential C-relevant information about A coming from its membership in B.
In “burning fossil fuels (A) is environmentally irresponsible (B) [and therefore is bad] (C)”
holds
is subjective but for many audiences fails (i.e. “irresponsible” means “likely to cause bad outcomes”, which makes the whole category tautologically bad)
is problematic, since the denotational and connotational meaning of B aren’t different (badness-wise)
fails, since presumably the listener doesn’t know about A’s environmental irresponsibility
The argument may be fallacious if the listener doesn’t care about the environment but is tricked into accepting the badness of A based on connotations of “irresponsible”, but that isn’t exactly the fallacy described in the OP.
In “guns (A) are weapons (B) [and therefore should be banned] (C)”
holds
holds if the listener agrees that all weapons should be banned, else fails
depends on the listener’s idea of a typical weapon, if it is a hydrogen bomb, then (3) holds, if it is a knife, (3) fails, if it is a gun, we are building a circular argument
probably holds
So this argument may qualify, but it is so obviously tautological that I have problems imagining someone actually using it.
“firearms with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are assault weapons (and therefore should be banned)” seems to be more along the lines of arguments I’ve actually seen. I probably oversimplified in my head when I wrote the first post. Of course, having a Federal statute that happened to define firearms in that way might have directly led to such arguments after the ban expired, but it’s probably appropriate to label some laws as having “The Worst Legal Categorization in the World” as well. What if banning firearms with magazines holding more than 9 rounds would have saved even one extra life?