Logical Fallacies and Defense Mechanisms in Relation to the Study of Law

Logical Fallacies

A. Argumentum ad Misericordiam

In an argumentum ad misericordiam, or an appeal to pity, the audience

is asked to accept an argument not because of the strength of the argument,
but rather because of the speaker's piteous circumstances. Since whatever
pity one may feel for a speaker has nothing to do with the validity of the
arguments offered by that speaker, the appeal to pity is an informal fallacy.
Nevertheless, courts regularly accept such arguments.

Example:

The Revised Penal Code specifically provides a provision under Article 13 par. 2, the
mitigatiing circumstance of seniority be present if the accused is over 70 years of
age.

Where the law specifies for the penalty of a crime, the courts may exercise mercy
over the accused due to his old age or status.

B. Ignoratio Elenchi

The ignoratio elenchi, or the fallacy of proving an irrelevant conclusion, is

sometimes known as a "straw man" argument. The fallacy consists of constructing an
argument differing from the opponent's and then,
instead of attacking the opponent's argument, attacking the argument of the
straw man.

Example:

Argument 1: Cigarette Ads in televisions should be banned.

Straw Man Argument: The government should be totally ban cigarettes.

The initial argument focuses on Advertisements in televisions where showing of

Cigarette commercials be banned, the second argument attacks the first argument
that differs from the initial argument where only advertisements be banned.

C. Petitio Principii
A petitio principii is a circular argument, sometimes known as begging the question.
The proponents of such arguments assume the conclusion of the argument offered-
they take the proposition for which they are arguing and use it as a premise in the
argument. Petitio principii arguments are usually disguised because the proposition
that serves as both the premise and the conclusion is phrased differently.

Example:

China claims that Spratlys Island is within their territory even with a lack of factual
antecedents to support their claim. The premise, although insufficient in merit
portrays the strong belief of China in their claim of ownership.

Such premise, despite lack of factual basis forms part of Petitio Principii.

D. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc, a special version of the false cause fallacy, is an
assertion that, because one event occurred before another, the first was the cause of
the second. Although the post hoc argument seems to be an easy fallacy to avoid, it
appears with some regularity in legal argument. However, its regular appearance is
not due solely to the logical shortcomings of attorneys and judges. Some legal
opinions explicitly recognize the fallacy, but offer good reasons for concluding that
causation exists.

Example:

The instance where there was a measles outbreak during 2018 and early 2019 due to
the fallout of infants not being vaccinated for fear that it would cause autism in
children.

Such fallacy applies when the mothers of the infants assumed that vaccines are the
primary cause of autism in children due to several isolated reports and
misinformation by the media.

E. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

The argumentum ad ignorantiam, or the appeal to ignorance, is the inference

of a proposition's truth from the fact that it has not been proved false, or the
inference of its falsity from a failure to establish its truth.
Éxample:

This with regards to the claim of Pres. Rodrigo Duterte of an existence of a list of
individuals conspiring to overthrow his presidency, such claim has not been proven
false however such fallacy of belief exists due to lack of established truth.

F. Argumentum ad Terrorem

The argumentum ad terrorem, or appeal to fear, also known as the list of

horribles, is an appeal to all of the unacceptable consequences claimed to flow from
the proposition opposed. The difficulty in identifying instances of this fallacy is that,
when a policy decision is required, an examination of the consequences of that
decision is certainly reasonable.

Example:

The persuasion of the Philippine Government to convince the people to help in the
preservation of the environment by making use of the natural disasters as precursors
to a much more devastating natural occurence as a consequence of the constant
destruction of our planet.

G. Argumentum ad Antiquitam

The argumentum ad antiquitam, or appeal to the old or the ages, as the

fallacy that holds that determinations and customs of our fathers and forebears must
not be changed.

Example:

The belief that Kaingin does not contribute to the destruction of the environment
because it was practiced by our forefathers.

H. Fallacy of Accident

The fallacy of accident, also known as dicto simpliciter, and the fallacy of hasty
generalization, also known as converse accident, are fallacies found in the
application and formulation of rules. The fallacy of accident occurs in applying a
general rule to a specific situation in which the rule is inappropriate because of the
situation's "accidents, or individual facts; the mistake is in taking general rules as too
general. General rules are developed from consideration of general, common
situations. When a situation is exceptional because of its accidents, an exception to
the rule must exist.

Example:

Many of us know that it is wrong to cut people with knives, and this is supported by
the law. However, surgeons use scalpels to cut people open every day, and that’s
both legal and, most of us would say, moral. In this case, it would be illogical to argue
that surgery is wrong or should be illegal based on the statement that it’s wrong to
cut people with knives. Surgery is an obvious exception, and almost all of us know
that.

I. Hasty Generalization

The fallacy of hasty generalization is the converse of the fallacy of accident. It

is the formulation of a general rule from an examination of situations that are, in
fact, special For example, such an error occurs in statistical studies when the sample
is not representative of the population. Hasty generalization occurs in argument,
including legal argument, when the cases under consideration share some accident
or accidents, and a general rule is formulated from those cases. A rule is a hasty
generalization if it does not recognize the accidental features of the cases and is
stated as a rule of general application. Legal arguments contain fallacies of both
kinds.

Example:

One famous use for this fallacy may be inferred through the use of surveys. Most
notably for election periods, where in order to base one candidate's popularity, the
respective survey taker will interview a number of random people within a small
portion of any area and will conclude based on the commonality of the answers.

It is purported that even though such number of people interviewed only make up of
minute portion of the whole, such conclusions can still be arrived upon therefore
exposing the study to flaws and inconsistencies.

J. Composition

The fallacy of composition includes two distinct, though similar fallacies. The
first is the inference that the properties of the parts of a whole are also properties of
that whole. The second fallacy is the inference that the properties of the members of
a collection are also properties of the collection itself.

Example:

In Falk v. City of Whitewater, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant intentionally
made a fist and negligently struck him in the face. The defendant argued that the
plaintiff's stated cause of action was contradictory, claiming that if the making of the
fist was intentional, then the striking also must have been intentional. The court
rejected the argument:

Even assuming that the making of a fist is necessarily an intentional act, to reason
that the striking of someone with that fist is therefore necessarily likewise
intentional is a non sequitur. Almost all negligent conduct is composed of individual
intentional components; to constitute an intentional tort, however, the actor must
intend the consequences of his acts, or believe that they are substantially certain to
follow.

The court treated the argument as an inference from each part of an event
being intentional to the whole act being intentional and, therefore, rejected
the inference as a fallacy of composition.

Defense Mechanisms

A. Repression

Repression is an unconscious defense mechanism employed by the ego to

keep disturbing or threatening thoughts from becoming conscious.

Thoughts that are often repressed are those that would result in feelings of guilt
from the super ego.

This is not a very successful defense in the long term since it involves forcing
disturbing wishes, ideas or memories into the unconscious, where, although hidden,
they will create anxiety.

Repressed memories may appear through subconscious means and in altered forms,
such as dreams or slips of the tongue ('Freudian slips').

Example:
One known example of repression is on the instance where the victim who
experienced trauma e.g. through physical violence, rape etc. where such events may
be forgotten though unintentional on the part of the person, due to the happening
of such traumatic event.

B. Projection

Projection is a psychological defense mechanism proposed by Anna Freud in

which an individual attributes unwanted thoughts, feelings and motives onto another
person.

Example:

Thoughts most commonly projected onto another are the ones that would cause
guilt such as aggressive and sexual fantasies or thoughts.

For instance, you might hate someone, but your superego tells you that such hatred
is unacceptable. You can 'solve' the problem by believing that they hate you.

C. Displacement

Displacement is the redirection of an impulse, usually aggression, onto a

powerless substitute target. The target can be a person or an object that can serve as
a symbolic substitute.

Displacement occurs when the person wants to do something of which the Super ego
does not permit. The Ego thus finds some other way of releasing the psychic energy
of the person. Thus there is a transfer of energy from a repressed object-cathexis to
a more acceptable object.

Example:

One person's frustrations from his superior is directed to a lesser individual usually
by hurting them, so as to redirect the impulse or frustration.

D. Sublimation

Sublimation is similar to displacement, but takes place when we manage to

displace our unacceptable emotions into behaviors which are constructive and
socially acceptable, rather than destructive activities.

Example:
The defense of sublimation may be related to practice of law by an example where a
student who experienced failures in his subject may be motivated to study even
harder as a product of his frustrations due to failing grades.

E. Denial

Denial is a defense mechanism proposed by Anna Freud which involves a

refusal to accept reality, thus blocking external events from awareness.

If a situation is just too much to handle, the person may respond by refusing to
perceive it or by denying that it exist.

As you might imagine, this is a primitive and dangerous defense - no one disregards
reality and gets away with it for long! It can operate by itself or, more commonly, in
combination with other, more subtle mechanisms that support it.

Example:

The usual experience of denial comes from the experience of death of a loved one,
where such traumatic event may often lead to the person's refusal to accept such
reality and therefore his brain ultimately stops awareness of the event.

Sources:
https://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1444&context=fac
pubs
https://www.simplypsychology.org/defense-mechanisms.html