Veil of Fire

Ok, I *know* there's a fallacy in the following argument, but I can't find it or name it, and I certainly don't know how to argue against it.

The argument can exist in a multitude of contexts, and be worded many different ways, but it comes down to this:

"If I have to put up with it, YOU should have to put up with it too."


Any help?

Ron Singh

Perhaps: Argumentum ad misericordiam

NialScorva

Dunno. Stuff like that is usually where I point out that language and discussion are tools for communicating and implementing one's personal desires on another person, and I have a big stick that does the same thing when the other person chooses to no longer engage in reasonable dialogue.

Alonzo Fyfe

An "Is/Ought" fallacy -- an attempt to derive an "ought" (should have to) statement from an "is" (do have to) statement.

Ender

Incorrect. How can that be an appeal to pity? The statement is not appealing to pity for the sake of getting the other person to do whatever.

Ender

Nope. An "is" is most definitely not a "deontological act" that is required- but a description of a state of affairs, or natural laws' first principles that identify the basic reasons for actions.

A good example of a naturalistic fallacy is thus:

• Torturing babies causes them pain.
• Therefore it is wrong to torture babies.

One way around this is to assume the morality in the first premise, and avoid any attempts at reaching a prescriptive conclusion from a descriptive premise.

~WiGGiN~

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

tronvillain

It simply does not follow - the argument is totally unsupported. Why should you have to put up with it too? You could easily argue the opposite: If you have to put up with it, then I shouldn't have to put up with it, because there is no point in the both of us suffering.

MadMordigan

A legitimate way of using this argument is to use it to show that the 'suffering' in question is either imaginary or trivial.

For example:

Person A : I should not have to put up with my wife constantly asking to give me blowjobs.

Person B: I don't know, my wife constantly askes to give me blow jobs as well, and it ain't so bad.

Ezra

Counter-example:

If you have to do something, you're compelled. For instance, he committed a crime and is in jail, it is not his choice. But because he has to suffer in prison, is there any good reason a law abiding citizen should have to follow?

If so, then it would follow:

If I have to be in jail as punishment for my crime, then you have to be in jail as punishment for my crime also.

The statement is then ridiculous.

seebs

Well, that's just plain not an argument logically, but it's generally *fair*. However, it's often the kind of short-term "eye for an eye" fairness that results in greater overall suffering, without addressing concerns.