Faulty Implications
This logical fallacy occurs when an argument relies on an incorrect or misunderstood implication, often leading to a straw man. The example of white privilege shows how a false premise (if some black people are better off, then white privilege doesn't exist) can be attacked instead of the actual claim.
THE IDEA
FAULTY IMPLICATIONS
Here is a faulty argument that some white people use to try and argue that white privilege doesn’t exist:
“Some black people are better off than me, therefore I don’t have white privilege.”
Now, it is true that some black people are better off than you, even if you are white; for example, unless you’re very unusual Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey are probably better off than you. However, this does not mean you don’t have white privilege.
Here is how that faulty argument tries to proceed, in more detail:
-
Some black people are better off than me even though I am white.
-
If some black people are better off than you then you don’t have white privilege.
-
Therefore I do not have white privilege.
The process of concluding something from a logical implication is called inference. This rule of inference is very fundamental to the use of logic, and has a fancy name: modus ponens, which is Latin for “way of affirming”. It is one basic way to progress from premises to a conclusion. (In Chapter 9 we will look at Carroll’s paradox which explores the impossible state we would get into if we were not allowed to use this rule of inference.) Modus ponens says that if we know “A implies B” then we can infer B from A as follows:
-
A is true.
-
A implies B.
-
Therefore B is true.
In the above example the conclusion is “I do not have white privilege.” There are now two ways the conclusion could be false: either (1) is false, which would mean that you are better off than all black people (or you are not white) or (2), the implication itself, is false. For our example some people think (2) is true, but this is a misunderstanding of what white privilege means. It is a straw man fallacy, that is, when an argument is replaced by one that is not the same but is much easier to knock down (a straw man) and is then duly knocked down. (We will come back to straw man arguments in Chapter 14 on equivalence.) White privilege doesn’t mean that every white person is better off than every non-white person; it means that if any given non-white person were in exactly the same circumstances but white, they would be better placed in society and life.
The key is to remember that it is both statements “A” and “A implies B” that together allow us to infer statement B. So if statement B is not true it is either because A isn’t true or because “A implies B” isn’t true. The possibility of the implication being untrue is often overlooked.
When to use it
When debating complex social issues like privilege or systemic bias, ensure the opponent's argument is represented accurately rather than attacking a weakened version.
In logical reasoning, check both the inference form and the truth of its premises, including the conditional statement on which a modus ponens argument depends.
In everyday arguments, watch for when someone sets up a straw man by replacing an original claim with a more extreme or simplistic version that is easier to dismiss.
When analyzing arguments in media or politics, identify if the conclusion relies on an implication that is not actually true or is being misinterpreted.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
White privilege argument
Some white people argue that because some black people are better off than them (e.g., Barack Obama or Oprah Winfrey), they don't have white privilege. This argument misrepresents white privilege as implying every white person is better off than every non-white person, when it actually means that a non-white person would be better off in the same circumstances if they were white. The argument is a straw man because it attacks a distorted version of the claim.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Can you identify a real-world argument that uses a faulty implication? What is the false premise or misunderstood implication?
Why is it important to check the truth of both premises (A and A implies B) before accepting a conclusion?
How does the white privilege example demonstrate a straw man fallacy? What other claims are commonly misrepresented in similar ways?
Often confused with
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- The Art of Logic How to Make Sense in a World that Doesn’t (Eugenia Cheng)