Page 138 - 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. 138
What Do We Know about the World?
advocating the policy do not know of such evidence). In general, then,
we can say that one commits the zero tolerance fallacy when one ad-
vocates or imposes a zero tolerance policy towards some activity while
lacking evidence for supposing that having zero tolerance for that activ-
ity will best serve to reduce the activity in question.7
4. Motivation for Committing the Fallacy
The normal motivation for committing the zero tolerance fallacy is
that officials think they need to appear to be doing something to ad-
dress a supposed problem. If some behaviour is unwanted and nothing
is being done by those responsible for regulating behaviour in that area,
there is the concern that those responsible will be seen to be irresponsi-
ble. But adopting a zero tolerance policy against the unwanted behav-
iour is an easy way to be seen to be doing something forceful to eliminate
the problem. This is because the policy is simple and applies in an on-off
way, with no need to weigh the details of particular cases. Furthermore,
the stiff penalties attached to violations give the appearance that author-
ities are taking the matter seriously and doing something about it.
But a zero tolerance policy may turn out to be counter-produc-
tive. For instance, those charged with carrying out the policy – that
is, with enforcing it – may simply not enforce it, or it may be the case
that their enforcement of it will be much more lax than it would have
been had some more reasonable policy been adopted. Suppose that, for
some reason, parents come to fear that their children will be endangered
if things that might be used as weapons are allowed at their children’s
school. (This is a perfectly natural and strong fear and one that some-
times hinders clear reasoning.) Suppose further that the school board
or the school principal responds to these concerns by adopting the zero
tolerance policy of forbidding students from bringing to school items
that might be used as weapons. If those charged with enforcing the pol-
icy see the penalty attached as being overly severe, they may well not en-
force the policy. They may simply pretend not to observe relevant viola-
tions of the rule, and in the end this practice may result in even less de-
terrence than there would be if a non-zero tolerance rule was in place to
discourage such behaviour.
7 Here I assume that evidence can, in principle, be obtained. Of course, I allow that the methods of
providing such evidence – statistical analysis, precedent, arguments by analogy, et cetera – are likely
to be quite varied. I am not sure what we should say about cases where evidence cannot be obtained,
either because obtaining such evidence is impossible (as it might well be in some instances about the
distant past) or because obtaining the evidence would violate serious ethical or legal protections of
privacy needed to ensure that individuals can pursue lives free from undue interference.
advocating the policy do not know of such evidence). In general, then,
we can say that one commits the zero tolerance fallacy when one ad-
vocates or imposes a zero tolerance policy towards some activity while
lacking evidence for supposing that having zero tolerance for that activ-
ity will best serve to reduce the activity in question.7
4. Motivation for Committing the Fallacy
The normal motivation for committing the zero tolerance fallacy is
that officials think they need to appear to be doing something to ad-
dress a supposed problem. If some behaviour is unwanted and nothing
is being done by those responsible for regulating behaviour in that area,
there is the concern that those responsible will be seen to be irresponsi-
ble. But adopting a zero tolerance policy against the unwanted behav-
iour is an easy way to be seen to be doing something forceful to eliminate
the problem. This is because the policy is simple and applies in an on-off
way, with no need to weigh the details of particular cases. Furthermore,
the stiff penalties attached to violations give the appearance that author-
ities are taking the matter seriously and doing something about it.
But a zero tolerance policy may turn out to be counter-produc-
tive. For instance, those charged with carrying out the policy – that
is, with enforcing it – may simply not enforce it, or it may be the case
that their enforcement of it will be much more lax than it would have
been had some more reasonable policy been adopted. Suppose that, for
some reason, parents come to fear that their children will be endangered
if things that might be used as weapons are allowed at their children’s
school. (This is a perfectly natural and strong fear and one that some-
times hinders clear reasoning.) Suppose further that the school board
or the school principal responds to these concerns by adopting the zero
tolerance policy of forbidding students from bringing to school items
that might be used as weapons. If those charged with enforcing the pol-
icy see the penalty attached as being overly severe, they may well not en-
force the policy. They may simply pretend not to observe relevant viola-
tions of the rule, and in the end this practice may result in even less de-
terrence than there would be if a non-zero tolerance rule was in place to
discourage such behaviour.
7 Here I assume that evidence can, in principle, be obtained. Of course, I allow that the methods of
providing such evidence – statistical analysis, precedent, arguments by analogy, et cetera – are likely
to be quite varied. I am not sure what we should say about cases where evidence cannot be obtained,
either because obtaining such evidence is impossible (as it might well be in some instances about the
distant past) or because obtaining the evidence would violate serious ethical or legal protections of
privacy needed to ensure that individuals can pursue lives free from undue interference.
