Page 143 - 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. 143
intolerance and the zero tolerance fallacy 143
one, my work were to stimulate critical thinking theorists to work on
the development of standards for successful zero tolerance arguments.
That is a worthy goal, for then we could characterize arguments which
commit the zero tolerance fallacy as simply those arguments which at-
tempt to defend zero tolerance policies but which fail to live up to the
proper standards (whatever those might be) for being a good zero tol-
erance argument. However, it is important to note that we should not
tolerate bad zero tolerance arguments while we wait for argumentation
theorists to provide us with an account of what constitutes a good argu-
ment for zero tolerance policies.
7. Conclusion
I am aware that “to label the view of your philosophical opponent a
‘fallacy’ is, much more often than not, a cheap rhetorical trick” (Joyce,
2006: 152). Nonetheless, I hope I have demonstrated that having some-
thing called “the zero tolerance fallacy” as part of our social and political
rhetoric would be, on balance, a good thing. In those cases where zero
tolerance policies are inappropriate, having a named fallacy would serve
as a useful rhetorical device to make this fact known in a simple and ac-
cessible manner. And in cases where one might allege that the zero tol-
erance fallacy has been committed, defenders of the policy could easi-
ly respond, and their responses would serve to move the discussion to
just those areas that are most likely to be productive of improved crit-
ical thinking about what social rules or policies we should endorse. In
the end, were we lucky, all of this might help reduce the unwarranted
use of zero tolerance policies and nudge the level of intolerance slight-
ly closer to zero.11
References
Bassham, G., W. Irwin, H. Nardone, and J. M. Wallace (2011). Critical
Thinking, New York: McGraw Hill.
BBC News Europe. Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson faces extradi-
tion. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18066901 (19. Au-
gust 2012).
Dahlman, C., D. Reidhav, and L. Wahlberg (2011). Fallacies in Ad
Hominem Arguments. Cogency, 3/2, 105–124.
11 I am grateful for comments I received after presenting some of these ideas at the Days of Ivo Škarić
conference in Postira, Brač, Croatia (2012 April 20th) and from a generous anonymous referee. I es-
pecially want to thank Thea E. Smith for her help and Gabrijela Kišiček for doing such a splendid job
of organizing the conference.
one, my work were to stimulate critical thinking theorists to work on
the development of standards for successful zero tolerance arguments.
That is a worthy goal, for then we could characterize arguments which
commit the zero tolerance fallacy as simply those arguments which at-
tempt to defend zero tolerance policies but which fail to live up to the
proper standards (whatever those might be) for being a good zero tol-
erance argument. However, it is important to note that we should not
tolerate bad zero tolerance arguments while we wait for argumentation
theorists to provide us with an account of what constitutes a good argu-
ment for zero tolerance policies.
7. Conclusion
I am aware that “to label the view of your philosophical opponent a
‘fallacy’ is, much more often than not, a cheap rhetorical trick” (Joyce,
2006: 152). Nonetheless, I hope I have demonstrated that having some-
thing called “the zero tolerance fallacy” as part of our social and political
rhetoric would be, on balance, a good thing. In those cases where zero
tolerance policies are inappropriate, having a named fallacy would serve
as a useful rhetorical device to make this fact known in a simple and ac-
cessible manner. And in cases where one might allege that the zero tol-
erance fallacy has been committed, defenders of the policy could easi-
ly respond, and their responses would serve to move the discussion to
just those areas that are most likely to be productive of improved crit-
ical thinking about what social rules or policies we should endorse. In
the end, were we lucky, all of this might help reduce the unwarranted
use of zero tolerance policies and nudge the level of intolerance slight-
ly closer to zero.11
References
Bassham, G., W. Irwin, H. Nardone, and J. M. Wallace (2011). Critical
Thinking, New York: McGraw Hill.
BBC News Europe. Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson faces extradi-
tion. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18066901 (19. Au-
gust 2012).
Dahlman, C., D. Reidhav, and L. Wahlberg (2011). Fallacies in Ad
Hominem Arguments. Cogency, 3/2, 105–124.
11 I am grateful for comments I received after presenting some of these ideas at the Days of Ivo Škarić
conference in Postira, Brač, Croatia (2012 April 20th) and from a generous anonymous referee. I es-
pecially want to thank Thea E. Smith for her help and Gabrijela Kišiček for doing such a splendid job
of organizing the conference.
