"You can't say people shouldn't steal if you give things away for free!"
October 6, 2009 9:27 AM Subscribe
What type of logical fallacy is this: "Giving away x is incompatible with the belief that people shouldn't steal x."
It's a straw man argument. The speaker is inferring meaning in the act of giving a thing away that may not be intended: That is, that because I give something away must mean I think it is always under any circumstances OK for people to acquire this thing without paying for it.
posted by cerebus19 at 9:41 AM on October 6, 2009
posted by cerebus19 at 9:41 AM on October 6, 2009
There are some lists on wikipedia: List of Fallacies and Logical Fallacies.
My money's on some kind of faulty generalization
posted by I_pity_the_fool at 9:49 AM on October 6, 2009
My money's on some kind of faulty generalization
posted by I_pity_the_fool at 9:49 AM on October 6, 2009
I would call it a non sequiter.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:55 AM on October 6, 2009
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:55 AM on October 6, 2009
Oops. "non sequitur"
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:57 AM on October 6, 2009
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:57 AM on October 6, 2009
Total armchair logician (if even that) here, but I was going to suggest perhaps that it might be categorized as an equivocation fallacy, or a 'no true scotsman' fallacy. What this assertion tries to do is, ad hoc, use 'giving away things for free' as an exclusive definition of 'stealing,' which it is not.
That said, I don't think its as much a proper logical fallacy as much as it is an argument will poorly defined terms.
posted by Lutoslawski at 9:58 AM on October 6, 2009
That said, I don't think its as much a proper logical fallacy as much as it is an argument will poorly defined terms.
posted by Lutoslawski at 9:58 AM on October 6, 2009
This is not a straw man argument. Not everything misleading said on the internet is a straw man argument, despite what you might read on Metafilter.
posted by xmutex at 9:58 AM on October 6, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by xmutex at 9:58 AM on October 6, 2009 [2 favorites]
It kind of seems like a definist fallacy, if I understand correctly:
The definist fallacy involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other.
The example I'm coming up with in my head is this:
Object: Beer
1. FREE = BAD
A. Give away
B. Steal
2. NOT FREE = GOOD
A. Sell
So if giving things away makes it all right to steal, you're relying on a non-existent causation . There may be correlation between giving away and stealing -- the same people who get freebies may also be the same people who steal. But there is no causation: I get free tampons in the mail all the time (WHY?), but I don't steal tampons. I buy them. In fact, companies send me free tampons in attempts to convince me to buy their products.
On the other hand, it could just be a hasty generalization.
IANAL: I am not a logician.
posted by brina at 10:05 AM on October 6, 2009
The definist fallacy involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other.
The example I'm coming up with in my head is this:
Object: Beer
1. FREE = BAD
A. Give away
B. Steal
2. NOT FREE = GOOD
A. Sell
So if giving things away makes it all right to steal, you're relying on a non-existent causation . There may be correlation between giving away and stealing -- the same people who get freebies may also be the same people who steal. But there is no causation: I get free tampons in the mail all the time (WHY?), but I don't steal tampons. I buy them. In fact, companies send me free tampons in attempts to convince me to buy their products.
On the other hand, it could just be a hasty generalization.
IANAL: I am not a logician.
posted by brina at 10:05 AM on October 6, 2009
Err ... hasty generation, hastily linked.
posted by brina at 10:06 AM on October 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by brina at 10:06 AM on October 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
Generalizati-- you know what? Never mind. Today is obviously not my day.
posted by brina at 10:06 AM on October 6, 2009
posted by brina at 10:06 AM on October 6, 2009
Sorry, to elaborate a bit:
What this argument tries to do is obtusely equate 'giving' and 'stealing' by defining both with the event of receiving something for free. It ignores, however, all of the nuances which make 'stealing' and 'giving away for free' quite different things. Hence the equivocation fallacy. Stealing is the taking of something not willingly offered to you by force, while giving away is the willful gifting of something to someone else. While both involve the transfer of something without equal exchange (payment), they are not the same thing.
posted by Lutoslawski at 10:09 AM on October 6, 2009
What this argument tries to do is obtusely equate 'giving' and 'stealing' by defining both with the event of receiving something for free. It ignores, however, all of the nuances which make 'stealing' and 'giving away for free' quite different things. Hence the equivocation fallacy. Stealing is the taking of something not willingly offered to you by force, while giving away is the willful gifting of something to someone else. While both involve the transfer of something without equal exchange (payment), they are not the same thing.
posted by Lutoslawski at 10:09 AM on October 6, 2009
If I understand what you're asking, you think this constitutes a fallacy: The propositions "It is acceptable to give away x" and "It is not acceptable to steal x" cannot both be true. I don't see a fallacy there, because all I see is a conclusion. What are the premises? That looks like it's going to devolve into some semantic disagreement about what constitutes stealing.
posted by bricoleur at 10:10 AM on October 6, 2009
posted by bricoleur at 10:10 AM on October 6, 2009
It could be implicitly using the continuum fallacy, which I like to call the "But where do you draw the line?!" fallacy. Giving things away resembles stealing; thus, they exist on a continuum and it'd be too hard to draw a line between them. Thus, you can't allow one without allowing the other. (I'm assuming that's what the arguer is driving at -- it's a bit hard to tell.)
I was going to suggest perhaps that it might be categorized as an equivocation fallacy, or a 'no true scotsman' fallacy.
It seems more like the opposite of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The NTS fallacy is spuriously dismissing an apparent counterexample -- something one would have thought does fall under the generalization. The fallacy the OP is talking about is expanding a generalization to the point where you're applying it to things that one would have thought do not fall under the generalization. (Stealing is wrong, so, hey, giving things away is wrong too.)
posted by Jaltcoh at 10:14 AM on October 6, 2009
I was going to suggest perhaps that it might be categorized as an equivocation fallacy, or a 'no true scotsman' fallacy.
It seems more like the opposite of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The NTS fallacy is spuriously dismissing an apparent counterexample -- something one would have thought does fall under the generalization. The fallacy the OP is talking about is expanding a generalization to the point where you're applying it to things that one would have thought do not fall under the generalization. (Stealing is wrong, so, hey, giving things away is wrong too.)
posted by Jaltcoh at 10:14 AM on October 6, 2009
Don't overthink it. It's a non sequitur, pure and simple. ("It does not follow . . . ."). The one postion (I give away old clothes) is unrelated to the other (I don't want anyone stealing my old clothes). "To give" and "To be stolen from" are entirely different.
posted by Webber at 10:16 AM on October 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Webber at 10:16 AM on October 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
I think more detail is needed here. There's a difference between saying "If you put a song up for free download, it's pretty silly to object when people e-mail a copy to their friends" and saying "If you give away your old car to a charity, you can't object when someone steals your new car."
posted by lore at 10:26 AM on October 6, 2009
posted by lore at 10:26 AM on October 6, 2009
Don't overthink it. It's a non sequitur, pure and simple. ... "To give" and "To be stolen from" are entirely different.
No, they're not entirely different; they're partly different and partly similar. That's what gives rise to the fallacy. They both involve someone taking something from you without you getting anything back in return. It's quite possible that there's a name for a fallacy where you say that thing 1 -- which consists of X + Y -- is the same as thing 2 -- which consists of Y + Z. The fallacy is: "These two things share an element, so they're basically the same thing and it's futile to try to distinguish between them." That's a lot more specific than just plain "non sequitur," though it's possible there's a better name for it than anyone (including me) has suggested so far.
posted by Jaltcoh at 10:32 AM on October 6, 2009
No, they're not entirely different; they're partly different and partly similar. That's what gives rise to the fallacy. They both involve someone taking something from you without you getting anything back in return. It's quite possible that there's a name for a fallacy where you say that thing 1 -- which consists of X + Y -- is the same as thing 2 -- which consists of Y + Z. The fallacy is: "These two things share an element, so they're basically the same thing and it's futile to try to distinguish between them." That's a lot more specific than just plain "non sequitur," though it's possible there's a better name for it than anyone (including me) has suggested so far.
posted by Jaltcoh at 10:32 AM on October 6, 2009
Actually, I think the thing that's really missing here is the chain of logic. I could say "If you live in Arizona, you shouldn't have children" and you couldn't really say what logical or factual errors I'm making unless you know why I'm saying that. If I'm saying "Barbara Eden was born in Arizona, therefore children born in Arizona grow up to star in sexist sitcoms" that's a different fallacy than "Charles Manson says Arizona is a great place to raise kids, and Charles Manson is a bad person, therefore Arizona is a terrible place to raise kids."
If there's no link between "giving things away" and "stealing," then I'm going with those calling it a non sequitur. But I suspect anyone actually making that argument would have some reason why they think that.
posted by lore at 10:38 AM on October 6, 2009
If there's no link between "giving things away" and "stealing," then I'm going with those calling it a non sequitur. But I suspect anyone actually making that argument would have some reason why they think that.
posted by lore at 10:38 AM on October 6, 2009
Thirding Lutoslawski.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:10 AM on October 6, 2009
posted by saulgoodman at 11:10 AM on October 6, 2009
The fallacy the OP is talking about is expanding a generalization to the point where you're applying it to things that one would have thought do not fall under the generalization. (Stealing is wrong, so, hey, giving things away is wrong too.)
But the statement the OP asked about say "stealing is wrong, therefore giving things away is wrong." It just says that the premise of "stealing X is wrong" is contradicted by the premise "giving X away is right." I wonder if this argument was made in general terms, or if there is a specific X here, and if this would make more sense if we knew what X was.
posted by ludwig_van at 11:15 AM on October 6, 2009
But the statement the OP asked about say "stealing is wrong, therefore giving things away is wrong." It just says that the premise of "stealing X is wrong" is contradicted by the premise "giving X away is right." I wonder if this argument was made in general terms, or if there is a specific X here, and if this would make more sense if we knew what X was.
posted by ludwig_van at 11:15 AM on October 6, 2009
Jaltcoh is describing a false analogy fallacy
Clearly the link between stealing and being given something is that the person receiving the thing is getting it for free, as Lutoslawski described... even if it's not explicitly stated, it's implied by the way the statement is presented. That is, the premise is that since someone is getting something for free in both cases, they're therefore the same thing (i.e., it's incompatible to be okay with one and not the other). This is where the false analogy comes in, since the statement (implicitly) relates stealing and being gifted a thing on one property (how much it costs: $0 for both), and then uses that to say that they're the same for all other properties, which is clearly not the case.
posted by logicpunk at 11:18 AM on October 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
Clearly the link between stealing and being given something is that the person receiving the thing is getting it for free, as Lutoslawski described... even if it's not explicitly stated, it's implied by the way the statement is presented. That is, the premise is that since someone is getting something for free in both cases, they're therefore the same thing (i.e., it's incompatible to be okay with one and not the other). This is where the false analogy comes in, since the statement (implicitly) relates stealing and being gifted a thing on one property (how much it costs: $0 for both), and then uses that to say that they're the same for all other properties, which is clearly not the case.
posted by logicpunk at 11:18 AM on October 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'd say its the logical fallacy of Appeal to Tradition.
What you're saying is that since X has traditionally held Y value it can't be given away (or be taken for free), since it was believed to be stealing to take it for free in the past. You're defining part of your proposition as "the belief" in something. Beliefs change over time & that's where tradition comes into play.
A modern day equivalent I can see as not upholding your appeal to tradition is open source software. It was, at one time, illegal to use software for free but now it's actively encouraged.
posted by torquemaniac at 11:26 AM on October 6, 2009
What you're saying is that since X has traditionally held Y value it can't be given away (or be taken for free), since it was believed to be stealing to take it for free in the past. You're defining part of your proposition as "the belief" in something. Beliefs change over time & that's where tradition comes into play.
A modern day equivalent I can see as not upholding your appeal to tradition is open source software. It was, at one time, illegal to use software for free but now it's actively encouraged.
posted by torquemaniac at 11:26 AM on October 6, 2009
Don't overthink it. It's a non sequitur, pure and simple. ... "To give" and "To be stolen from" are entirely different.
No, they're not entirely different; they're partly different and partly similar.
I appreciate Jaltcoh's point. But of course no two things are entirely different. Even "X" and "not X" share some qualities (they exist in the universe, I just typed both, they appear on a Web page, it's Tuesday, etc). But "to give" and "to be stolen from" don't share a relevant quality. The fact that each involves movement of goods (with or without an exchange of value) isn't enough.
What is relevant is what they don't share, which is permission, or volition. One has it, the other doesn't. And to invoke the one as support for the other just doesn't follow. In Latin . . . NS.
Yes, of course, there could be a lot more to the story. But given what the OP told us -- NS is sufficient.
posted by Webber at 11:28 AM on October 6, 2009
No, they're not entirely different; they're partly different and partly similar.
I appreciate Jaltcoh's point. But of course no two things are entirely different. Even "X" and "not X" share some qualities (they exist in the universe, I just typed both, they appear on a Web page, it's Tuesday, etc). But "to give" and "to be stolen from" don't share a relevant quality. The fact that each involves movement of goods (with or without an exchange of value) isn't enough.
What is relevant is what they don't share, which is permission, or volition. One has it, the other doesn't. And to invoke the one as support for the other just doesn't follow. In Latin . . . NS.
Yes, of course, there could be a lot more to the story. But given what the OP told us -- NS is sufficient.
posted by Webber at 11:28 AM on October 6, 2009
False analogy. Yes.
posted by Lutoslawski at 11:42 AM on October 6, 2009
posted by Lutoslawski at 11:42 AM on October 6, 2009
False Dichotomy? They're saying the only ethical way to obtain something is to buy it.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:59 AM on October 6, 2009
posted by blue_beetle at 11:59 AM on October 6, 2009
Response by poster: See, I knew this was complicated and I wasn't just an idiot for not knowing!
I like "non sequitor" - the original comment definitely leaps over some logical steps, and it's those missing steps which make it difficult to define exact what is wrong with the argument.
While the reason I'm asking is particularly relevant to theft vs. gift, I tend to equate it with the attitude (a la Justice Pickles in the UK) that says "A scantily clad woman can't claim rape" - ie: if you (look like you're) giving something away, you can't later complain if someone takes it when you don't want them to.
posted by benzo8 at 12:36 PM on October 6, 2009
I like "non sequitor" - the original comment definitely leaps over some logical steps, and it's those missing steps which make it difficult to define exact what is wrong with the argument.
While the reason I'm asking is particularly relevant to theft vs. gift, I tend to equate it with the attitude (a la Justice Pickles in the UK) that says "A scantily clad woman can't claim rape" - ie: if you (look like you're) giving something away, you can't later complain if someone takes it when you don't want them to.
posted by benzo8 at 12:36 PM on October 6, 2009
I appreciate Jaltcoh's point. But of course no two things are entirely different. Even "X" and "not X" share some qualities (they exist in the universe, I just typed both, they appear on a Web page, it's Tuesday, etc). But "to give" and "to be stolen from" don't share a relevant quality. The fact that each involves movement of goods (with or without an exchange of value) isn't enough.
Well, the fact that the shared quality isn't sufficiently relevant is what makes it a fallacy. I still think that overly focusing on a shared quality, as if that's all that matters, is what's distinctive about this particular fallacious argument. That's more specific than just "non sequitur," which is so broad it could probably be applied to most bad arguments.
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:26 AM on October 7, 2009
Well, the fact that the shared quality isn't sufficiently relevant is what makes it a fallacy. I still think that overly focusing on a shared quality, as if that's all that matters, is what's distinctive about this particular fallacious argument. That's more specific than just "non sequitur," which is so broad it could probably be applied to most bad arguments.
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:26 AM on October 7, 2009
At the considerable risk of being a pedant, I'm going to repeat: No premises, no argument. No argument, no fallacy.
posted by bricoleur at 8:30 PM on October 8, 2009
posted by bricoleur at 8:30 PM on October 8, 2009
Premises don't have to be explicitly stated. It's disingenuous to say that there's no argument just because all the premises aren't spelled out for you.
posted by logicpunk at 10:45 AM on October 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by logicpunk at 10:45 AM on October 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
Point taken, logicpunk. I did not express myself accurately. My point was that there was not enough information given for us to unpack the premises with any confidence. Hence the range of speculation above. If you don't know what the premises are, you can't know either that there is a fallacy involved, or what the fallacy is if there is one.
posted by bricoleur at 12:13 PM on October 14, 2009
posted by bricoleur at 12:13 PM on October 14, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
I am just an armchair logician, though.
posted by Xoebe at 9:39 AM on October 6, 2009