Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What is the name of this fallacy?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

What does "our" mean in the conclusion "We desire our happiness"? If it means "our own", then it's fine. If it means, "each others" then it does not follow. [Formally, I think it would be a fallacy of introducing a new term.]

Even the valid interpretation above only holds if "we" means the "I" and the "you" named by the two premises. If it actually means "all people", then it does not hold. [Formally, it would be a hasty generalization.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Stuart Mill makes the argument:

(p1) I desire my happiness

(p2) You desire your happiness

_____________________

(c1) We desire our happiness

I know this is false, but the name of the fallacy has escaped me. Can anyone help me out on this?

I think this is a fallacy of ambiguity, and more particularly, it is classified as a "distributive fallacy" regarding composition.

"The argument moves from a claim about the distributive sense of a class (i.e. each of the parts taken separately) to a claim about the collective sense of a class (i.e. the class taken as a whole)."

Cite: Bruce Thompson's Fallacy Page

http://www.cuyamaca.edu/brucethompson/Fall...composition.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...