I learned a lot from the SCOTUS decision on the Hobby Lobby case that was published earlier this summer.
1) There were a couple of really fun and interesting logical fallacies in play in the arguments put forth by the company-person, not that it matters (see #3)
2) It’s apparently considered douche-y to use the Latin terms when citing logical fallacies (and I’m sure in some circles, it’s considered douche-y just citing logical fallacies…and blogging about them). Aaaaaannnnnnddddd……
3) The logical fallacies that Hobby Lobby committed in presenting their case don’t actually matter at all when it comes to SCOTUS deliberation and ruling – they are essentially ruling as if it’s a hypothetical situation in which the company-person is in fact genuinely ‘experiencing’ unjust government curtailment of their religious freedoms.
I find #3 especially depressing, mostly because I am almost childishly obsessed with fairness, and it just doesn’t sit right that even if there is ample evidence that this company-person was full of shit when asserting that their religious conviction was why they didn’t want to cover the pills and devices included in the Obamacare mandates, the court is really only deciding whether the curtailment is constitutional for ANY company-person that makes that claim. Not only that, the court apparently excused themselves from even considering whether the pills and devices actually do the thing that is called out as objectionable by the religious-run company – that is, they wouldn’t consider whether the objections were scientifically valid, just whether that [public, for-profit] company-person could be forced to act against their religion (again, pretty much just taking their word for it that it’s actually against their religion).
The most troubling result of this decision – aside from the fact that it further embeds this crazy ass notion that corporations are people that are somehow eligible for all the rights and protections of people but none of the responsibilities or consequences – is that SCOTUS doesn’t appear to have given themselves or anyone else the power to call bullshit when one of them says ‘it’s against my religion’ but there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. So it’s this actual slippery slopes they’ve set the stage for. I’m all for freedom of religion, but in order to protect the minority from the majority, which is in large part what our laws are based on, we also need there to be freedom from religion.
Here are some Logical Devices and Fallacies that were bandied about in discussions about this case, and a few others that popped up at the state level afterwards:
- Slippery Slope – a device or a fallacy depending on how it’s presented/discussed. As a device, it describes a situation where A causes B, or is very likely to cause it, with reasonable and appropriate evidence cited. In the Hobby Lobby case, we have a real-deal slippery slope if this ruling causes there to be more court cases like this in which more and more religious exemptions from government mandates are requested and granted without examination or accountability of the actual religiosity of the corporations. We already have religious exemptions for parents who don’t want to vaccinate their children, and corporations are now legally treated as people in many respects (notable and dastardly exception: when it comes to finding them liable for harm)…seems like this court decision mounted us on a slope that was already primed for slippage. As a fallacy, it describes a situation where A is said to cause B with either no real evidence to support that claim, or completely ridiculous evidence that has little to no grounding in reality. The most grating example of this for me is the argument that granting gay people the right to marry will lead to humans marrying their pets. No evidence cited, and plenty of counter-mechanisms are left in place to ensure that one doesn’t lead to the other (e.g. pets can’t consent, which is required when entering into a contract).
- Special Pleading Fallacy – Pretty much to the “t” what Hobby Lobby committed in arguing their case (not that it mattered … grrrrr). First their insurance package voluntarily included various contraceptives (suggesting that they agreed it was an acceptable benefit to offer their employees). Then they dropped the coverage. And then a few months later they filed the suit arguing that they shouldn’t have to cover those same contraceptives NOT because they were opposed to the very idea of government mandates (which I’m sure they are), but because doing so would contradict the moral believes of the company-person. Those same moral beliefs that were apparently not in conflict a few months prior to that. Yeah. Mmk.
- Ad hominem fallacy (or for non-douches, personal attacks) – This one gets applied a lot, on both sides of an debate. I’ve had friends use it when having difficulty arguing their case, and I’ve had friends [falsely] claim it is being applied to them when they’re having trouble defending theirs. Basically, leave the arguer out of it, and stick to the argument itself. Difficult when calling out the Special Pleading Fallacy, as it really does directly relate to the arguer. Oh boy, this is getting tricky…
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (“after this, therefore because of this”) – Events happening in sequence doth not mean the second one was caused by the first one. I was accused of this by a friend when I pointed to a case that was filed immediately after the Hobby Lobby decision was issued, citing it as possible evidence that in fact the slippery slope described above was playing out, not as a fallacy but in actuality. Here’s why I was right and he was wrong. This fallacy is committed when the arguer comes to a conclusion based exclusively on the fact that one thing came after another (thanks, Wikipedia). I hadn’t come to any conclusion at all at that point, and I certainly wasn’t basing my suspicion only on the sequence (the content of the case was relevant, as were the legal actors and language used in the brief that was filed). Still, it’s a good reminder to refrain from drawing conclusions too hastily based on sequence. That would be bad science, after all.
- False analogy fallacy – If two things share some qualities, that doesn’t mean they automatically share others. The tricky part is that they might indeed share other qualities, coincidentally or not. It’s up to the strength of the accompanying argument to determine whether a fallacy is being uttered.
Lots more, of course, but I’m spent and this post has been in draft status for months now.
Go and Know 
