Additionally Identified As: False Settlement, Hijacked Argument, Hijacked Declare, Hijacked Precept
Description:
Hijacking is a foul religion method through which somebody pretends to agree with one thing, akin to an argument, to make use of it as a rhetorical device in opposition to these focused by the hijacking. This technique differs from False Allegiance in that whereas there’s a declare of settlement, there may be not a declare of allegiance. As an example, an individual may fake to be a Republican to make use of the False Allegiance technique. To Hijack, they may fake to agree with a Republican argument to make use of it in opposition to Republicans in unhealthy religion.
Claims, ideas, and arguments are frequent targets for Hijacking. When it comes to fallacious reasoning, the same old sample is that the hijacker selects a declare, precept, or argument that the goal accepts. The hijacker pretends to agree with what they’ve hijacked it after which asserts that it entails or implies {that a} declare is true. The purpose is commonly to steer the goal that they need to agree with the declare, however this technique can, like most fallacies, even be used to troll the goal.
The fallacy will be introduced on this common type:
Premise 1: A accepts P.
Premise 2: B pretends to just accept P.
Premise 3: B claims that P entails/implies Q.
Conclusion: Q is true.
On this type, A is the goal of the fallacy and P is a declare, argument, precept, and so on. that they agree with. For instance, A is likely to be vaccine alternative advocates and P is likely to be the view that the principle of autonomy provides individuals the ethical proper to refuse to be vaccinated even throughout a pandemic. B is the individual utilizing the fallacy; they fake to just accept P. For instance, B is likely to be a pro-choice liberal who pretends to agree that the precept of autonomy applies to vaccine mandates. This deceit shouldn’t be a fallacy of reasoning however is an act of unhealthy religion.
B then claims that P entails or implies Q. For instance, B may declare that the precept of autonomy entails that folks ought to have the proper to an abortion. If P doesn’t entail or indicate Q, then they’d both be engaged in one other deceit or making a logical error about entailment or implication. However even when P does entail or indicate Q, this reasoning would nonetheless be fallacious.
Whereas it might sound odd, this fallacy’s logical error hinges on Premise 1, that A accepts P. Even when P does entail/indicate Q, it doesn’t comply with that Q is true simply because A accepts P. A foolish math instance exhibits this:
Premise 1: A accepts that 2+2=5.
Premise 2: B pretends to just accept that 2+2=5
Premise 3: B claims that 2+2=5 entails that (2+2) +(2+2) =10.
Conclusion: It’s true that (2+2) +(2+2) =10.
Laid naked like this, it’s clear why the reasoning is flawed. However when individuals have interaction in Hijacking, their purpose is commonly persuasion somewhat than proof. In such circumstances, the hope is that A’s acceptance of P will persuade them, by way of a professed false settlement, to just accept Q. Within the instance given earlier, the purpose could be to steer pro-choice (about abortion) liberals to agree with the pro-choice stance on vaccination. The instance will be “reversed” to contain a vaccine alternative individual Hijacking the precept of autonomy to make use of in opposition to those that are pro-choice about abortion. It’s fallacious both method.
Whereas hijackers are sometimes acknowledged for his or her unhealthy religion pretense, Hijacking will be an efficient persuasive device. In any case, an individual is likely to be psychologically inclined to agree with those that profess to agree with them or who look like making an attempt to ascertain frequent floor. Good religion efforts to focus on settlement or frequent floor wouldn’t be Hijacking, though they is likely to be mistaken as such. Hijacking will also be used as a rhetorical device with a distinct target market.
A standard use of Hijacking is to hijack a precept, apply it to one thing those that settle for this precept disagree with, after which fallaciously conclude that the goal does not likely agree with their professed precept. This tactic thus makes use of unhealthy religion to accuse the goal of unhealthy religion. It may be introduced as having this common type:
Premise 1: A accepts P.
Premise 2: B pretends to just accept P.
Premise 3: B claims that P entails/implies Q.
Premise 4: (B asserts that) A rejects Q.
Conclusion: (B asserts that) A rejects P.
Since that is Hijacking, B acts in unhealthy religion after they fake to just accept P. B may additionally act in unhealthy religion by pretending to imagine that P entails/implies Q, however they may imagine this (and is likely to be proper). B may lie about A rejecting Q, maybe by setting up a Straw Man. However performing in unhealthy religion shouldn’t be what makes this reasoning fallacious. The error is to deduce that A rejects P as a result of A (is claimed to) reject Q. This doesn’t comply with.
This type of Hijacking is often not geared toward making an attempt to steer A to just accept Q. Relatively, it’s most frequently used to make a foul religion criticism of A constructed on their (alleged) rejection of P.
For instance, feminists usually settle for that girls needs to be handled pretty. An individual who dislikes trans individuals may fake to agree with this after which assert that truthful therapy of ladies entails/implies that trans ladies needs to be banned from competing as ladies in sports activities. It may then be claimed that feminists reject this and therefore it might then be asserted that they don’t actually imagine in truthful therapy for girls.
Whereas this conclusion doesn’t comply with, it might probably have significantly psychological pressure and rhetorical worth, particularly within the minds of people that already dislike the goal. Hijacking may have the phantasm of logical pressure. It’s because it might probably resemble good reasoning, such because the strategy of parity of reasoning. What follows is a considerably detailed dialogue of two strategies of reasoning that Hijackers may try to mimic.
Parity of Reasoning
Parity of reasoning will be seen as a particular kind of argument by analogy. The concept is that if two arguments have the identical reasoning, then if one is nice (or unhealthy) then the opposite can also be good (or unhealthy).
The construction of the reasoning appears like this:
Premise 1: Argument A is nice (or unhealthy) reasoning.
Premise 2: Argument B has the identical reasoning as A.
Conclusion: B is nice (or unhealthy) reasoning.
One philosophically well-known instance of that is Gaunilo’s criticism of St. Anselm’s ontological argument. Put very crudely, the ontological argument contends that God should exist as a result of He’s excellent. Grossly oversimplified, Gaunilo argued that if saying one thing is ideal proves it exists, then you would show the existence of an ideal island (or an ideal something) with the identical reasoning. Gaunilo thought-about this absurd and concluded, by parity of reasoning, that St. Anselm’s argument was additionally absurd.
Within the case of deductive arguments, the parity of reasoning is identification of reasoning. It’s because if two deductive arguments have the identical type and one is legitimate, then the opposite should even be legitimate. Likewise for an invalid deductive argument. A sound argument, which is a sound argument with all true premises, doesn’t work the identical method. It’s because whereas all sound arguments are legitimate, not all legitimate arguments are sound. As such, one argument might be sound whereas one other argument with the identical type may solely be legitimate. Here’s what this reasoning appears like:
Premise 1: Argument A is legitimate (or invalid)
Premise 2: Argument B has the identical logical construction as A.
Conclusion: B is legitimate (or invalid).
Within the case of inductive arguments, parity of reasoning is extra difficult. It’s because two inductive arguments can have similar logical constructions whereas one is robust and the opposite is weak, or perhaps a fallacy. For instance, a powerful inductive generalization can have the identical primary logical type as a Hasty Generalization or Biased Generalization. See these fallacies for a extra detailed dialogue of this.
When making use of a parity of reasoning argument to 2 inductive arguments, you’ll often want to check greater than their logical construction to point out that they’ve adequately comparable reasoning.
Parity of reasoning does apply completely to structural inductive fallacies; these are inductive fallacies which can be at all times unhealthy reasoning due to their logical construction. So, any argument with that construction will even be a fallacious argument. Now, as to why Hijacking can appear to be parity of reasoning.
A parity of reasoning model Hijacking will be introduced as having this construction:
Premise 1: A accepts argument P nearly as good.
Premise 2: B pretends to just accept P.
Premise 3: B claims that P has parity of reasoning with Q.
Conclusion: Q is an efficient argument.
Whereas there could be the query of whether or not P and Q do have a parity of reasoning, this is able to nonetheless be a fallacy for the explanations given earlier. That’s, even when P and Q have parity of reasoning, A’s view that P is an efficient argument doesn’t show that Q is an efficient argument. Along with gaining the phantasm of logical pressure from parity of reasoning, Hijacking may misuse the nice logic of entailment and implication.
Entailment & Implication
Whereas there may be dispute over how the phrases needs to be used, I’ll take a considerably sensible strategy to entailment and implication. Within the case of what might be referred to as strict logical entailment, then if A entails B, then B follows from A with certainty (or necessity). For instance, one can consider the premises of a sound deductive argument as entailing the conclusion. As one other instance, one can consider being a triangle as entailing that one thing has three sides.
Whereas philosophers do additionally use “implication” the identical method as I’ve simply used “entailment” it additionally enjoys a broader utilization that might be seen as an inductive inference. On this casual view, if A implies B, then B follows from A with a fairly diploma of chance. Usually, this type of reasoning could be good logic:
Premise 1: P entails/implies Q,
Premise 2: P is true.
Conclusion: Q is true.
For instance, this is able to be strong logic:
Premise 1: Being a triangle entails having three sides.
Premise 2: T is a triangle.
Conclusion: T has three sides.
As famous above, Hijacking misuses this kind of reasoning and as a substitute makes makes use of of unhealthy logic like this:
Premise 1: A accepts P
Premise 2: P entails/implies Q
Conclusion: Q is true.
The issue is, as defined earlier, that it doesn’t comply with that Q is true as a result of A accepts P and P entails/implies Q. However this unhealthy logic will be modified to be (probably) good reasoning:
Premise 1: Particular person A accepts P.
Premise 2: P entails/implies Q.
Conclusion: A ought to settle for Q.
One very noticeable distinction between this reasoning and Hijacking is that there isn’t a deception; nobody is pretending to just accept P in unhealthy religion. From a logical standpoint, the important distinction lies within the conclusion: the declare shouldn’t be that Q is true, however that A ought to settle for Q based mostly on their acceptance of P and that P entails/implies Q. This technique is an efficient religion method of arguing that an individual ought to settle for one thing that’s entailed/implied by one thing else they settle for.
If P does entail/indicate Q, then it appears cheap that A ought to logically settle for Q in the event that they settle for P. This does, in fact, rely upon the power of the entailment/implication and there can actually be circumstances the place this may be debated. For instance, whether or not the precept of autonomy entails/implies a proper to decide on to get an abortion or entails/implies a proper to decide on to not get vaccinated throughout a pandemic will be rationally debated in good religion. Due to this, somebody may have interaction in Hijacking whereas additionally making a (probably) good argument. In any case, arguing in unhealthy religion shouldn’t be the identical factor as making a foul argument. The shape would appear to be this:
Premise 1: Particular person A accepts P.
Premise 2: Particular person B pretends to just accept P.
Premise 3: P entails/implies Q.
Conclusion: A ought to settle for Q.
Whereas Premise 2 is an act of unhealthy religion, it may be seen as irrelevant to the logic of the argument. It’s because Premises 1 and three do the logical work and Premise 2 is there to operate as a foul religion persuasive system. If the goal accepts the conclusion as a result of of Premise 2, then they’d be a sufferer of unhealthy religion persuasion and engaged in poor reasoning.
As an example, think about a vaccine alternative one who is anti-abortion. They may fake to just accept the pro-choice (abortion) view of autonomy and assert that it implies that vaccine alternative also needs to be a proper. If the pro-choice (abortion) view plausibly implies the vaccine alternative view, then it might be cheap for a pro-choice individual to additionally settle for a proper to vaccine alternative. The vaccine alternative individual would nonetheless be engaged in a foul religion argumentation, and they might, in fact, not settle for their very own argument as assist for his or her view. This doesn’t present that their conclusion is flawed or that the argument is flawed; it’s because performing unhealthy religion doesn’t entail that an individual’s declare is fake or that their argument should be unhealthy. See the Dangerous Religion Fallacy and the Fallacy Fallacy.
Protection: Being a matter of intention, unhealthy religion can generally be troublesome to discern. In any case, an individual could make unfaithful claims or unhealthy arguments in good religion however look like arguing in unhealthy religion. An individual may use the reality and good arguments in unhealthy religion. Luckily, Hijacking makes an attempt are generally straightforward to detect. It’s because the hijacker is pretending to agree with one thing, and this pretense can usually be uncovered by even a cursory investigation of the Hijacker.
As could be suspected, one factor to search for are inconsistencies between the Hijacker’s professed agreements and their different claims and actions. For instance, think about a politician who professes to agree that equity to ladies and equality for girls should be a matter of legislation and use this notion to argue for banning trans ladies from competing in opposition to ladies in sports activities. When criticized by liberals, this politician accuses them of being those who’re in opposition to equity and says they don’t care about ladies.
However a take a look at the politician’s voting report exhibits they’ve voted in opposition to all different payments geared toward truthful therapy for girls and have constantly expressed a disdain for equality. It could be cheap to deduce that they’re hijacking the notion of equity in unhealthy religion.
In different circumstances, it may be troublesome to inform. For instance, some random vaccine alternative individual you see in a video waving an “Our our bodies! Our alternative!” signal is likely to be constantly pro-choice about abortion, vaccines, and maybe different issues as effectively. Or they is likely to be cynically Hijacking pro-choice (abortion) language to “personal the libs.”
When making judgments about unhealthy religion attributable to inconsistency, you should definitely keep away from falling into the entice of the Advert Hominem Tu Quoque. You also needs to needless to say individuals are usually blind to what their professed ideas, values, and beliefs entail/indicate. And, in fact, there will be rational disagreements about what one thing entails or implies. Luckily, checking out the reality of claims and the standard of reasoning doesn’t require understanding an individual’s intent. However this results in the topic of why discerning unhealthy religion Hijacking issues.
Whereas exposing unhealthy religion doesn’t disprove the Hijacker’s declare, it does present that they don’t imagine in their very own argument. In any case, a Hijacker (by definition) is pretending to just accept one thing and making use of this pretense as a rhetorical system. In the event that they believed, they’d not be pretending and will advance an excellent religion argument. As such, whereas exposing unhealthy religion of this kind doesn’t show the Hijacker is flawed, it might show that they assume they’re flawed in that they don’t settle for their very own professed argument.
In some circumstances, the Hijacker’s argument will be turned in opposition to them. For instance, if an anti-abortion however pro-vaccine alternative individual Hijacks the notion of autonomy to assist their pro-vaccine alternative view, then it might be cheap to argue that they need to change into pro-choice (abortion) if they’re professional vaccine alternative. The identical would apply if a pro-choice (abortion) individual hijacked the autonomy argument of a vaccine alternative individual.
Whereas checking out unhealthy religion will be difficult, defending in opposition to the unhealthy logic of the fallacy is simple; the precise defects of the varied varieties are given within the description above. Search for these and it’s best to simply keep away from being taken in by this unhealthy religion method.
Instance #1
Protestor: “Our Our bodies! Our Selection! No vaccine mandates!”
Bystander: “Hey, didn’t I see you on the pro-life rally final week?”
Protestor: “Yeah, so?”
Bystander: “Are you pro-choice now?”
Protestor: “Sure. Professional-choice for vaccines.”
Bystander: “So, nonetheless against abortions?”
Protestor: “Our Our bodies! Our Selection! No vaccine mandates!”
Instance #2
Protestor: “Life is sacred! Select life! Vaccine mandates now!”
Bystander: “Hey, didn’t I see you on the pro-choice rally final week?”
Protestor: “Yeah, so?”
Bystander: “Are you pro-life now?”
Protestor: “Sure. Professional-life for vaccines.”
Bystander: “So, nonetheless pro-choice about abortions?”
Protestor: “Life is sacred! Select life! Vaccine mandates now!”
