Question

arguments of ethical appeal
directions: determine which definition of the 4 fallacies of ethical argumentation (false authority, dogmatism, moral equivalence, ad hominem) apply to each of the following statements.

1. the great oz will punish you for doing those evil things.
2. \why did i get an \f\ for cheating on the test? everybody cheated on the test, why am i the only one who is getting punished?
3. johnny just got caught cheating on his test, are you going to believe a lair?
4. i just got audited by the irs, me of all people, why dont they go after real criminals?
5. democracy is the best policy.
6. the national institute of health has a great government website, which explains why hiv causes aids.
7. if you dont believe that hiv causes aids, well, you suck.
8. mr. leland says that calculus is easy is a wonderful math book
9. if john f. kennedy got away with committing adultery while in office as president, then bill clinton and all subsequent presidents should be able to do so too.

Explanation:

1. False Authority: The Great Oz is a fictional and non - authoritative entity used to threaten punishment.
2. Moral Equivalence: The speaker is equating their act of cheating (which they got punished for) with others' cheating (implied not punished), suggesting moral equivalence.
3. Ad Hominem: Instead of addressing the issue of whether Johnny is telling the truth about something (not related to the cheating itself in a non - fallacious way), it attacks Johnny as a “liar” based on the fact that he cheated.
4. Moral Equivalence: The speaker is equating being audited (a relatively minor, legal - process - related event) with real criminal acts.
5. Dogmatism: It is a statement presented as an absolute truth without proper justification.
6. No Fallacy: The National Institute of Health is a legitimate authority, and this is a proper citation of an authority.
7. Ad Hominem: Instead of engaging in a rational discussion about whether HIV causes AIDS, it attacks the person.
8. False Authority: Just because Mr. Leland says it (and there is no indication that Mr. Leland is a proper authority on math books in general or this book in particular), it is presented as a fact.
9. Moral Equivalence: Equating John F. Kennedy's act (adultery) with Bill Clinton and subsequent presidents' potential acts, suggesting moral equivalence without proper moral or legal justification.

Answer:

1. False Authority
2. Moral Equivalence
3. Ad Hominem
4. Moral Equivalence
5. Dogmatism
6. No Fallacy
7. Ad Hominem
8. False Authority
9. Moral Equivalence