What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Main/AppealToInherentNature

 

ptraciw
topic
12:51:51 PM Mar 13th 2011
Is this really a logical fallacy? After all, do we really blame snakes for biting, babies for screaming and bears for mauling? Any single claim of course about inherent nature might be factually wrong, and thus should not be taken seriously, but if a claim about inherent nature is right factually then I don't see how it's a fallacy to say that's the way x are, so we can't hold it against them. Perhaps we might take actions to limit the damage, but that's different.
ading
05:26:56 AM Oct 15th 2011
edited by ading
I think it really is only a fallacy if there was no actual reason to do the thing in question. Snakes do bite, babies do scream, and bears do maul, but in Real Life, they have a reason to do it. Also, I would say a lot of people probably DO blame snakes and bears for biting and mauling people. Noone blames babies for screaming, but that's because babies are really cute.
ading
06:06:43 AM Aug 10th 2012
Actually, maybe a better distinction would be to say it only applies to sentient creatures, who have the intelligence to make moral distinctions. Snakes, bears, and babies have no sense of morality, so this does not apply to them.
back to Main/AppealToInherentNature

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy