A taxonomy of bad faith
Are the stock arguments against reform reasons at all, or moves? Bentham sorts them into named types, exposing the recurring tricks that stand in for a case.
Every reform Bentham wanted met the same handful of arguments, so he catalogued them as the tricks they are. He divides them into fallacies of authority, defer to ancestors and great names; of danger, raise the alarm of anarchy; of delay, the plea that the moment is never ripe; and of confusion, bury the question in words. Naming a move is half of defeating it: once you can label the argument someone is making, you can see that it answers nothing. The book reads now as an early anatomy of political bad faith, and its categories still describe how a debate is lost on purpose.
- logic
- classification
- taxonomy
- rhetoric
- methodology
- epistemology
Enter a dialogue
- Someone keeps losing arguments to opponents who sound reasonable but never quite engage; how would your catalogue help them see what is happening?
- Isn't labelling an argument a fallacy just a way to dodge it, letting you dismiss a real objection by giving it a name?
- How do you tell a genuine warning of danger from the fallacy of danger, when both point to what a reform might cost?
- To learn to name these tricks, what comfortable trust in respectable-sounding argument must a person be ready to give up?
- A person is told a change is too dangerous and the time not yet ripe; which of your fallacies has just been played on them?