Is there a proper term for when you want to convince people to do X because of reason A, but instead use reason B (which you may or may not believe to be true), because you know reason B will convince them to do X and reason A will fail to convince them?
Below is an example. Let’s not get bogged down in the particulars of the example, and whether the various parts are true. I’m just trying to give you a concrete example of what I am talking about in the first paragraph of this OP:
Let’s say you don’t like to pay taxes because you simply don’t want people to take away your money, no matter what use it is put to and what benefits it may have. And also let’s say you realize that using that as an argument will not get you elected or not help get your legislation passed. Instead, you start stating that taxes are bad for the economy and that lowering taxes helps create jobs and helps stimulate the economy (which you may or may not believe)
There are more mundane examples:
One spouse asks the other if they should go on an expensive vacation to Fiji in the summer, and instead of responding with the real reason: “No, because it’s too expensive” (which they know will not be convincing), they respond with something like “No, because I heard there is political turmoil at the moment, and it’s dangerous” (which they may or may not believe, but they know will convince the other spouse)
Does the above approach to constructing an argument have a name? Does it have a different name depending on whether you believe that reason B is true or not?
The closest one to what you’re describing in Weston’s Rulebook for Arguments (which I have right here) is a non sequitur: “drawing a conclusion that ‘does not follow’, that is, a conclusion that is not a reasonable inference from, or even related to, the evidence.”
In any argumentation, it’s important to distinguish between whether we’re talking about *logical *validity of the argument in a formal sense, or *persuasive *power in an informal social sense.
“Fallacy” is generally a term from formal logic used to categorize types of formal errors in logical correctness. And what you’re describing isn’t a fallacy in that formal sense. Your belief or lack of same in a proposition doesn’t determine its truthfulness.
Rhetoric is (among other things) the study of persuasion. Using the terms of your OP you want to persuade people to do action X. Citing reason A or B or J or K may be the best way to accomplish that goal; the truth of any of them is immaterial to their persuasiveness.
It seems like you want to raise reason A to a privileged position. The mere fact that *you *think A is a good justification isn’t the point. Persuasion is about providing your audience with what *they *think will be a good justification.
In an ideal world composed only of highly honest people with a largely common experience base, the differences in these sorts of cases would be both small & rare.
In other words, it looks to me like your real area of interest is in folks attempting persuasion using arguments & justifications they themselves do not believe.
I think we’d need a term from ethics, not logic, to describe that behavior.
It’s not a fallacy - there’s nothing wrong with using a different argument to try and persuade someone of a proposition. I’m not sure if there’s a name for it though.
I suppose related to this, or a subset of this, is when an authority figure gives an incentive (reward or punishment) for doing what you really ought to do anyway but might not on your own. Like, “You should eat your vegetables so that you’ll be allowed to have dessert,” or “You shouldn’t drive drunk because you could lose your driver’s license.”
The closest I can come to describing it is “disingenuousness” (since you’re hiding the real reason that you want X to be done), but that’s too broad a term.
If there’s no existing term for it, we could make one up
e.g. “rationale concealment”. Sample usage:
[ul]
[li]Husband: Let’s get a Playboy subscription. A study says that it’s good for reigniting passion in our marriage[/li][li]Wife: Don’t think you’re fooling me with your rationale concealment[/li][/ul]
“Ulterior motive” is the standard term for doing something where you have motivations beyond those you’re admitting to or volunteering publicly as a rationale.
That’s probably the best term. e.g.
Husband: Let’s get a Playboy subscription. A study says that it’s good for reigniting passion in our marriage. Wife: I think you have an ulterior motive … to drool at the busty babes. Forget it; no way we’re buying that.
but a related situation where the motivations are explicit would not come under subterfuge.
If I say, I have my own reasons for wanting this, which would probably not convince you, but I can make a case that you would want it for a different reason, which may not be enough for me.
As others have said, there really isn’t a fallacy here. There can always be multiple, truthful reasons for why a particular position should be advanced. Example: Suppose a husband decides that he wants to stay in the house and drink whiskey all day long. There are many reasons why this may be a poor idea:
It is terrible for his health.
He has work to do around the house.
He has to drive the kids to the dentist later that day.
Money is tight, and the family budget doesn’t allow for whiskey.
He may get abusive to the family when he is drunk.
etc.
So when the wife tries to persuade him not to do so, IMO any of these reasons are a proper one to convince him. Even if she prefers one argument to the other, it is not disingenuous to use any of them for persuasion so long as the rationale is true.
Perhaps an ethical dilemma could come into play if she tried to say that the preacher was coming over for a visit when he really wasn’t. But as others have said, that is outside the realm of an improper logical argument.
I’d go with this. It’s definitely not a fallacy because, as others have pointed out, it’s possible to create multiple logically sound reasons for doing something. Hell, one could actually have a fallicious argument for why they want to do it and then replace it with a sound one. That is, there’s not necessarily any connection between the soundness of a line of reasoning and whether or not one finds it convincing or one thinks it will convince others.
This is the closest among existing terms to what is being described in the OP.
However, isn’t "ulterior motive"usually reserved for actions and not for arguments/rationales?
That is, I assume “ulterior motive” applies to something like “Why is Mike helping Tom, given that they are not on good terms? Mike must have an ulterior motive”
That is, Mike, by helping Tom, is expecting some other outcome to occur as a result of helping Tom (i.e. and this outcome is his ulterior motive)
If we apply the above example to what is described in the OP, Mike is not expecting any other outcome as a result of helping Tom, he is simply not revealing the true reason that he is helping Tom. e.g. maybe he is the only one who knows Tom is his son, while the reason he gives others is “I simply like helping people since it says so in the Bible”
Ulterior motive can be used for arguments as well as actions. For example if Mike says “You should go help Tom because the Bible says so,” then the same issue applies - Mike has a motive for helping Tom that is not being expressed. (If you reply to Mike with “But Fred has a bigger need, so the Bible says we should help him first,” that’s not what Mike really wants.)
And I think it’s a perfect term for the OP’s need. The whole point of ulterior motives is that what motivates you is not what other people think it is.
One reason to argue in such a manner is to ensure that one is arguing on common ground. Say Bob and Fred disagree on their economic theory, but their economic theory has the say consequence given the way things are today. Bob would like to convince Fred using Bob’s own theory, but instead shows Fred that in either case, they come to same result.
This sort of thing is praised in arguments, rather than condemned. Do we have a term for such non-fallacies?
My suggestion for a term describing the OP behaviour is “appealing to the audience”, of which I would suggest “common ground” is a subset, and which itself might be a subset of “rhetoric” or “arguing to persuade”.
