Additionally Recognized As: Fallacy of Hypostatization
Description:
This fallacy happens when an abstraction is assumed to be an actual, concrete entity and a conclusion is drawn from this assumption. The fallacy has the next type:
Premise 1: Abstraction A is handled as if it had been an actual, concrete entity.
Premise 2: Treating A as actual is taken to ivolve C.
Conclusion: Subsequently, C is true.
The error is to deal with an abstraction as actual entity with out sufficient justification after which utilizing this to help a conclusion.
This fallacy generally happens when summary entities akin to nature, destiny and political or social entities are handled as being actual entities with intentions, needs, wants and motivations of their very own. Attributing such human qualities to things is typically known as the Anthropomorphic Fallacy or the Pathetic Fallacy.
This fallacy additionally happens when human establishments, akin to states, are handled as actual entities on par with (or being) pure (or supernatural) forces. This reification is usually used to justify actions or insurance policies for or in opposition to the establishment. For instance, the state may be reified to argue that it should be obeyed. This view is widespread with some fascists. As one other instance, an individual who pirates digital media would possibly reify firms to argue that their theft isn’t morally unsuitable.
In some circumstances, what counts as reification is a matter of significant philosophical debate. Thinkers have usually argued for the fact of what others regard as purely summary entities. For instance, philosophers akin to Aristotle and Aquinas attributed goal to pure forces and to dismiss their arguments with out consideration can be an error.
As such, displaying that this fallacy has been dedicated requires displaying that the abstraction has been assumed to be an actual entity with out sufficient help. If an argument for treating an abstraction on this method has been supplied, then this argument should be engaged somewhat than merely dismissing the reasoning as fallacious.
Protection: The principle protection in opposition to this fallacy is to test to find out if any good causes have been superior to just accept that the summary entity as being actual. If not, then the fallacy has been dedicated. Even when arguments do exist someplace for the summary entity being actual, this fallacy can nonetheless be dedicated by an individual who fails to help their view. For instance, whereas there are various philosophical arguments geared toward displaying that the pure world is purposeful, somebody who merely reifies nature can be committing this fallacy.
Instance #1
Rick: “Homosexuality solely happens in people and solely by alternative. In nature, there aren’t any homosexuals. This exhibits that nature is against homosexuality and hates it. Subsequently, homosexuality is morally unsuitable for what nature opposes is evil.”
Emile: “I’m fairly certain there are homosexual animals.”
Hugo: “Sure, years in the past I noticed a present about homosexual penguins. I imply, all of them put on tuxes, and you realize who wears tuxes, proper?”
Emile: “Grooms?”
Hugo: “Proper. And you realize what grooms do?”
Emile: “Get married.”
Emile: “Spot on. Since all of the penguins put on tuxes, meaning they’re all grooms. So, penguins are training homosexual marriage.”
Rick: “No, they don’t seem to be! And in the event that they had been, they’d go to hell!”
Hugo: “Yup. And it will be further unhealthy for them. They’re, in spite of everything, accustomed to the chilly.”
Emile: “These poor lifeless homosexual penguins…”
Rick: “Don’t pity them! They bought what they deserved!”
Instance #2
Kyle: “You realize, I really feel unhealthy doing this experiment. I do know they signed a launch and all however zapping them with electrical shocks doesn’t really feel proper.”
Gina: “I perceive. That is arduous on me, too. However the experiment requires that we go on and do what we should.”
Kyle: “Nicely, if the experiment requires me to do it, then I have to. I get my $15 proper?”
Gina: “After all, the experiment all the time retains its phrase.”
Kyle: “It higher. Why are you having me shock folks?”
Gina: “Oh, we’re doing an experiment on reification.”
Kyle: “Is {that a} fancy time period for zapping folks?”
Gina: “So far as you realize.”
Kyle: “Zap!”
Instance #3
“Why do you waste your vitality attempting to oppose the State? You in any other case appear to be a smart man. You don’t stick your head into a hearth and take a look at to withstand its burning. You don’t run out in a storm and shake your fist on the twister. You don’t attempt to oppose gravity. Be smart and don’t resist the State. It solely needs what’s finest for you, so even in the event you may somebody resist, you then would solely be hurting your self. Be smart. Come again to the loving embrace of the State. Even now, the State will forgive you your sins.”
Instance #4
Lulu: “I used to really feel a bit unhealthy about liberating software program, music, movies and eBooks.”
Sasha: “You imply ‘pirate’, proper?”
Lulu: “Such a harsh phrase. However anyway, I don’t really feel unhealthy in any respect about it now. In any case, once I liberate…or pirate…stuff, I’m not hurting people. I’m simply pirating from the company. It has loads of cash and does all types of unhealthy issues. So, it’s advantageous for me to pirate from it.”
Sasha: “Nicely, would you steal a sweet bar from the nook retailer?”
Lulu: “No manner. That may be stealing from Mr. Whipple. That may be unsuitable.”
Sasha: “However stealing from a company is okay? What in regards to the artists who create the work or the individuals who distribute it?”
Lulu: “Yeah, it’s advantageous. I’m not hurting these folks. I’m sticking it to the company.”
