While reading through Obama's speech on Race I spotted a perfect example of sophistical argumentation, which really brings into light the essence of his whole ploy.
“...unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.”
If I was to assert that justice, in the case of a wrongly convicted man, consists in releasing him, and another man was to assert that it consists in shooting him, we find, in this case, that we both share the same goal insofar as both of us want to “move in the same direction – towards” justice, but one of the proposed means is obviously fallacious – i.e not consistent with the meaning of justice. Thus the question is not whether you want to make a better future for your children and grandchildren, but rather in what that consists. The effectiveness of this sophistry is not to be doubted as any man may assume whatever implications please him. A communist may assume it consists in the destruction of the bourgeoisie, a socialist in the state control of property, and a feminist in the elimination of “discrimination” against women by government regulation, etc. In this way he can please all of his supporters by not committing to anything in particular.
-Jeffrey Luebcke
Comments