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
- 'Nobody complains, so nothing needs fixing.' You likened this to building no parapet on a bridge until accidents cause an outcry. Why is silence no proof?
- Isn't calling an argument a fallacy just a way of dodging it, dismissing a real objection by giving it a name?
- 'The end justifies the means,' people say. If a penny loaf is a good end, why does that not license cutting the baker's throat to get it?
- Someone with a real grievance is told that people elsewhere are far worse off. Why did you count that reply among the tricks?
- 'Wait, this is not the time,' says a man who claims to approve of the measure. Why did you suspect he wished it shut out for ever?