I’ve never had the opportunity to formally study logic or logical fallacies , though I’ve read several books on the topic; I’m sure there is a term for this but I just am not familiar with it. I’m going to use religion and politics as examples:
Mary is a Protestant. She does not like Catholics, Mormons or Muslims because, among other reasons, she does not believe their religions to be logically consistent. In dissecting Catholicism/Mormonism/Islam her logical abilities are actually razor sharp and admirable. However, she NEVER uses the same logical insight and abilities in her own religion.
Bill hates and despises Bill Clinton and is able to slice and carve his administration from one side to the other with great skill and accuracy. However, he is a total apologist for the Presidents Bush and does not apply the same standards of proof to their administrations and becomes angry when others attempt to.
The above are a a form of blind-spot or hypocrisy, but there must be some word for this dichotomy (which I see examples of everyday) in which a person is able to use razor sharp analytical skills WHEN THEY WANT TO but do not see how the same skills can be applied to something they choose to believe.
I’ve been calling it “Chesnutt’s Dichotomy” after Mary Chesnutt, who wrote in her diary
the mulattoes one sees in every family exactly resemble the white children-and every lady tells you who is the father of all the mulatto children in everybody’s household, but those in her own she seems to think drop from the clouds, or pretends so to think.
but I would rather use the correct term if there is one.
Well, this isn’t a logical issue. If the person doesn’t think about their own beliefs, then they aren’t using logic in the first place. On the other hand, if they do think about their beliefs, but not very critically, they probably just aren’t examining their assumptions/premises. Therefore, their logic might be valid but unsound.
So, I don’t think there is a term from logic for this.
However, there should be one in psychology. I recently read an article that described this exact phenomenon, but it really didn’t have a technical term for it.
I never was the greatest at Logic, but I agree with the other posters that that is not logic. I have a strong mental image of how my philosophy tutors would have described it, but that would be rather un GQ-worthy terminology.
Though, on second thoughts, to keep our terms straightforward, how about “cheating” ? Yep, maybe,a s well as psychology, it is an ethical issue.
In the original example, Mary didn’t insist on special treatment for her position, she just never applied the same scrutiny to her arguments as to others’.
I think the definition of “special pleading” requires the arguer to demand a different standard as part of their argument.
If so, it doesn’t apply in this case.
Now, if Mary said, “I don’t need to argue my beliefs, I just know they’re correct”, then she would be guilty of “special pleading”.
I liked the Chesnutt quote. It shows that these folks we’re so frustrated with usually aren’t even aware of the double standard.
