Political Correctness Fallacy
The author uses this label for an inference that people or ideas must have identical properties because treating them differently might offend. Equal rights or respectful treatment do not by themselves imply identical factual probabilities; claims about differences still need relevant evidence.
THE IDEA
Political Correctness Fallacy
(also known as: PC fallacy)
Description: The author’s label concerns treating people or ideas as factually equivalent solely to avoid offense. The inferential issue is whether a desire for equal treatment supplies evidence for identical probabilities or equally sound claims. It does not. Nor does the wish to reject political correctness establish that a proposed group difference is real or relevant.
Logical Form: Person 1 is a member of group A. Person 2 is a member of group B. Therefore, Person 1 and Person 2 are just as likely to be terrorists.
Example #1: While anything is possible, including a four year-old American girl being a terrorist, profiling works on probabilities. Inserting political correctness here goes against reason in asserting that every person is just as likely to be a terrorist.
Example #2: The source refers to a 6’2” female martial-arts master as a possible criminal and argues against questioning equal numbers of men and women. The excerpt does not supply the crime description or evidence needed to evaluate that probability claim.
Example #3: Are any and all religiously-based behaviors acceptable? Must we allow all expression of religion? Where do we draw the line and why?
Example #4: The source invokes protecting a “cultural belief” at the expense of a young girl’s life, but the underlying case is absent. This raises a conflict of values without providing a complete argument to assess.
These examples, and this fallacy, are very controversial. Like all fallacies, arguments need to be made. I am making an argument that PC can be a fallacy in many cases. You might agree, you might disagree. In either case, be prepared to argue for your position with valid reasons.
Exception: See above.
Tip: It is better to be politically incorrect than morally bankrupt.
When to use it
When assessing a suspicion, ask what evidence supports the probability claim and whether it concerns the particular person or merely a broad group label.
When evaluating a policy, distinguish its goal of equal treatment from empirical claims about outcomes or representation.
When discussing cultural practices that conflict with universal rights, evaluating whether tolerance can override other moral considerations.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Example 1
The author imagines a four-year-old American girl as a possible terrorist to distinguish possibility from probability. Evaluating a particular suspicion still requires evidence relevant to the person and situation.
Example 2
The source refers to a 6’2” female martial-arts master as a possible criminal. Without the missing crime description and evidence, the excerpt does not establish the probability comparison.
Example 3
Are any and all religiously-based behaviors acceptable? Must we allow all expression of religion? Where do we draw the line and why?
Example 4
The source describes a conflict between a “cultural belief” and a young girl’s life. The missing case details prevent evaluation of the specific argument.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
How can we balance the principles of political correctness with logical reasoning about probabilities?
In what situations might the political correctness fallacy lead to harmful outcomes?
How do you determine when it is appropriate to consider group differences versus treating everyone equally?
Often confused with
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Logically Fallacious - The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies