Lakeland Mirror

Issue date: 4/3/03 Section: Opinions

I thought it'd be interesting to pick apart anti-war arguments logically, pointing out the many fallacies of argument they use in order to persuade others that Gulf War II should not be (though, undeniably, it is). Unfortunately, I only have space here to illuminate a few fallacies in anti-war arguments. I'll also highlight some problems with media coverage of the war.

First, the most ridiculous fallacious arguments are those that use blocking traffic, infuriating police and war supporters, and burning flags, which are all forms of the logical fallacy ad populum. According to "Introduction to Logic," which is a great book for anyone sick of listening to stupid arguments, the appeal to emotion "replaces the laborious task of presenting evidence and rational argument with expressive language and other devices calculated to excite enthusiasm, excitement, anger or hate."

It could also be that destructive or disruptive acts, such as blocking streets or disturbing the peace, fall under the category of ad baculum, or the appeal to force. In other words, saying "Listen to us, or else," is abandoning reason for force. That tactic, by the way, doesn't equate to what the coalition is doing in Iraq. It's not reasonable to force someone into believing your argument or listening to you by punishing him or her if they don't. Understandably, this is why many war supporters are disappointed at some protesters' tactics.

Perhaps the most common fallacy in any argument, and one that has cropped up often in war protests, is the fallacy of ad hominem, or an attack on a person who defends or asserts a conclusion. Notice how many protesters are anti-President George W. Bush. Some are so focused on slamming Bush that they completely overlook the war when they call C-SPAN to voice their opinions.

I've heard dozens of people say they are against the war because Bush is trying to take over Iraq's oil supply. The problem with some peoples' thinking seems to be the following: oil exists in Iraq, and troops have secured oil wells, therefore the only reason America could be there is to take over the oil supply. Those people are guilty of the fallacy of composition, when what is true of the parts is assumed to be true of the whole. Just because one objective is to secure oil and just because some troops have secured oil wells doesn't prove that the war is about oil. Other objectives are being pursued, and troops have secured much more than oil wells; they have also secured villages, thereby freeing many Iraqi citizens.

On a similar note, to apply a generalization mechanically, such as "war is wrong," and therefore to say the Iraq war and any war is wrong, is to be guilty of the fallacy of accident, when a generalization is applied mechanically to particular cases which it doesn't govern. For Christians who believe in Armageddon, to be against war seems to be at the very least a little weird. It's possible some wars can be right and some can be wrong. Just as it may be justified to lie in order to rescue someone, it may also be "right" to wage war to free oppressed people, to eliminate world terrorism threats, and so on. Simply put, it's fallacious to decide complex issues, such as war, by applying generalizations mechanically.

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools