My brow stayed wrinkled much of the time. Why do I bother? I'm not sure; it may be because to this day I remember being struck by a placard reading "I love YOU, and I'd fight for YOUR life, too." Even if I didn't really change my mind on the subject until years later, the argument did worm its way into my conscience and do lasting good work there.
Anyway, speaking of fallacies and the never-ending work of exposing them, I came upon this 2009 piece about the "Dumbledore Fallacy":
I understand what it means to say “X is a good act” or “X is an immoral act”. I don’t understand at all what people mean when they say that Y is a good or bad person. Every person (even the damned) is ontologically good: we are all made in God’s image, all called to eternal beatitude with Him, all addressed by the same moral law. Every person has both good and evil desires; every person is capable of good or evil acts. The moral law gives us a key to evaluating acts, not persons.
“Good person” talk is closely related to what I call the Dumbledore fallacy. Here’s how it goes. I say “homosexual acts are immoral”. J. K. Rowling responds “Dumbledore protects the children of Hogwarts from the evil Voldemort. This is a good act, right?” “Yes”, I reply. Rowling continues, “So Dumbledore is a good person. Ah, but Dumbledore also likes to have sex with men. Therefore, homosexuality is good.” QED.
Now, the Dumbledore fallacy is obviously invalid; it could be used to justify anything. “Ah, but Dumbledore sacrifices children to Moloch. Therefore, ritual murder is good.” “Ah, but Dumbledore rapes old women. Therefore, raping old women is good.” It proves no such thing. At most, it proves that certain virtues can coexist with certain vices. Actually, it doesn’t even prove that much, because Dumbledore is a fictional character.
Rowling’s argument actually depends on a couple of unstated steps. “If a person does a good act, he or she is a good person. All the acts of a good person are good.” The argument only has the rhetorical force it does because these steps are left unstated. Say them out loud, and you can’t help but notice how absurd they are.
As Screwtape said, "Do remember you are there to fuddle him. From the way some of you young fiends talk, anyone would suppose it was our job to teach!"
3 comments:
It is sad when someone you otherwise admire has a moral fall; but it does happen. Trying to balance the duty of forgiveness with the need to uphold moral standards is a problem in Christianity especially, one that enriches its moral structure compared to faiths that simply condemn the fallen. Beginning with the idea that the world is fallen, and thus all the people in it, leads to a tragic view of the world -- but also one in which hope is possible.
Those are more complicated ideas that our society is accustomed to considering these days.
Abortion is so philosophically indefensible that it has led to the adoption of this dodge you mention: "...so I believe in personal choice, and a decision between a woman and her doctor/God/whatever." We can't have the argument as a democratic polity, with legislators acting on the outcome of the debate; that would mean losing the argument. But if we can push the argument out of the public space and into the intimate space, then no legislature has standing to interfere. Who knows what arguments are plausible to that one woman, and her doctor or God or whatever? Perhaps her god is Moloch.
Or one of the Aztec gods?
It might be any god. As long as it’s a private matter between them, no counter argument may enter from outside that intimacy.
Post a Comment