Refraction (Bent Thinking) #5

  1. Narrowed Consequence Fallacy: Promoting a position based on a single consequence and ignoring the others (both positive and negative consequences).  Refutation: Most issues present changes that have several possible consequences. Focusing on and mentioning one only does not tell the whole story. Also, you can see if the other person’s solution fixes the consequence, and if it doesn’t, your position is no worse than theirs. Examples:  1) “Marijuana should be legalized because no one has ever died of a marijuana overdose.”  While it may be that case that no one has died of marijuana overdose, there may be any number of other negative consequences to regular marijuana usage. The major consequences of drug usage may include overdose, but there are so many other negative effects of the drug use – destroyed health, family, jobs loss, criminal record, and etc. – all these can happen without someone overdosing and therefore making the drug use a bad option. 2) “The murderer should not be executed because doing so won’t bring the victim back to life.” This is true, however, no judicial process will do that, so it makes no difference. The question is, does capital punishment have any positive consequences, and if so, what are they and do they outweigh the negative consequences.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *