Page 131 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 131
olerance and the Zero 131
Tolerance Fallacy
Sheldon Wein, Saint Mary’s University
Summary
When an activity is unwanted, administrators often adopt a zero tolerance policy to-
wards that activity. The background assumption is that, by adopting a zero tolerance
policy, one is doing everything that one can to reduce or eliminate the activity in
question. Yet which policy best serves to reduce an unwanted behaviour is always an
empirical question. Thus, those who adopt a zero tolerance policy towards some be-
haviour without first investigating and finding that they are in a set of circumstances
where that policy is the most cost-effective way of reducing or eliminating the unde-
sirable behaviour are committing the zero tolerance fallacy.
Key words: argumentation theory, critical thinking, fallacy (or fallacies), rhetoric,
zero tolerance
T1. Introduction
his short paper has two goals. The first is to convince people that,
when people advocate or adopt a zero tolerance policy, they are
frequently committing a fallacy. The second is to stimulate peo-
ple who suspect such a fallacy is being committed to accuse those they
think are committing the fallacy of committing the zero tolerance falla-
cy. What I am suggesting, then, is that we add something to the rheto-
rician’s arsenal: a newly named fallacy to hurl at opponents. I am aware
of the downsides of suggesting this. As Quine observed, “[r]hetoric is
the literary technology of persuasion, for good or ill” and it holds “the
goal of persuasion above the goal of truth” (1987: 183). I must therefore
make at least a prima facia case that, in this instance, more good than ill
Tolerance Fallacy
Sheldon Wein, Saint Mary’s University
Summary
When an activity is unwanted, administrators often adopt a zero tolerance policy to-
wards that activity. The background assumption is that, by adopting a zero tolerance
policy, one is doing everything that one can to reduce or eliminate the activity in
question. Yet which policy best serves to reduce an unwanted behaviour is always an
empirical question. Thus, those who adopt a zero tolerance policy towards some be-
haviour without first investigating and finding that they are in a set of circumstances
where that policy is the most cost-effective way of reducing or eliminating the unde-
sirable behaviour are committing the zero tolerance fallacy.
Key words: argumentation theory, critical thinking, fallacy (or fallacies), rhetoric,
zero tolerance
T1. Introduction
his short paper has two goals. The first is to convince people that,
when people advocate or adopt a zero tolerance policy, they are
frequently committing a fallacy. The second is to stimulate peo-
ple who suspect such a fallacy is being committed to accuse those they
think are committing the fallacy of committing the zero tolerance falla-
cy. What I am suggesting, then, is that we add something to the rheto-
rician’s arsenal: a newly named fallacy to hurl at opponents. I am aware
of the downsides of suggesting this. As Quine observed, “[r]hetoric is
the literary technology of persuasion, for good or ill” and it holds “the
goal of persuasion above the goal of truth” (1987: 183). I must therefore
make at least a prima facia case that, in this instance, more good than ill
