Special pleading is an
informal fallacy
Informal fallacies are a type of incorrect argument in natural language. The source of the error is not just due to the ''form'' of the argument, as is the case for formal fallacies, but can also be due to their ''content'' and ''context''. Falla ...
wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception.
It is the application of a
double standard
A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for situations that are, in principle, the same. It is often used to describe treatment whereby one group is given more latitude than another. A double standard arises when two ...
.
In the classic distinction among
material fallacies,
cognitive fallacies, and
formal fallacies In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (; Latin for " tdoes not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic syst ...
, special pleading most likely falls within the category of a cognitive fallacy, because it would seem to relate to "
lip service
Lip service may refer to:
Idiom
* Lip service, an idiom for insincere talk
Film
* ''Lip Service'' (1988 film), an American comedy TV film
Television
* ''Lip Service'' (TV series), a 2010 dramatic series broadcast on BBC Three
* ''Lip Serv ...
", rationalization, and diversion (abandonment of discussion). Special pleading also often resembles the
"appeal to" logical fallacies.
In medieval philosophy, it was not presumed that wherever a distinction is claimed, a relevant basis for the distinction should exist and be substantiated. Special pleading subverts a presumption of
existential import
A syllogism ( grc-gre, συλλογισμός, ''syllogismos'', 'conclusion, inference') is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.
...
.
Examples
A difficult case is when a possible criticism is made relatively immune to investigation. This immunity may take the forms of:
* unexplained claims of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter
:Example: ''I'm not relying on faith in small probabilities here. These are slot machines, not roulette wheels. They are different.''
* creation of an ''ad-hoc'' exception to prevent the rule from backfiring against the claim:
:Example: ''Everyone has a duty to help the police do their job, no matter who the suspect is. That is why we must support investigations into corruption in the police department. No person is above the law. Of course, if the police come knocking on my door to ask about my neighbors and the robberies in our building, I know nothing. I’m not about to rat on anybody.''
* "You aren't like me, so you do not even have a right to think about or hold opinions on my plight."
Statistical
This variation occurs when the interpretation of the relevant statistic is "massaged" by looking for ways to reclassify or requantify data from one portion of results, but not applying the same scrutiny to other categories.
See also
*
Ad hoc hypothesis
*
Cherry picking (fallacy)
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data th ...
*
Courtier's reply
The courtier's reply is a type of informal fallacy, coined by American biologist PZ Myers, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism whatsoever.Myers ...
*
Exception that proves the rule
"The exception that proves the rule" is a saying whose meaning is contested. Henry Watson Fowler's ''Modern English Usage'' identifies five ways in which the phrase has been used, and each use makes some sort of reference to the role that a partic ...
*
Hard cases make bad law
*
Moving the goalposts
Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from goal-based sports, that means to change the rule or criterion (goal) of a process or competition while it is still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one ...
*
No true Scotsman
No True Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their universal generalization from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly.Antony Flew, ''God & Philosophy''p. 104 Hutc ...
*
Relativist fallacy
The relativist fallacy, also known as the subjectivist fallacy, is claiming that something is true for one person but not true for someone else, when in fact that thing is an objective fact. The fallacy rests on the law of noncontradiction. The fa ...
References
External links
Special pleading at the Fallacy Files
{{Pseudoscience
Relevance fallacies