Editing Special pleading

{{short description|Informal fallacy}}
{{about|the informal fallacy|the legal concept|Special pleader||}}

'''Special pleading''' is an [[Fallacy#Informal fallacy|informal fallacy]] wherein a person claims an exception to a general or universal principle, but the exception is unjustified.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |url=https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/special_pleading |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190523231048/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/special_pleading |url-status=dead |archive-date=May 23, 2019 |title=special pleading |website=English Oxford Living Dictionaries |publisher=Oxford University Press |access-date=23 May 2019 |quote=Argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Damer |first=T. Edward |title=Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments |publisher=Cengage Learning |year=2008 |edition=6 |pages=122–124 |isbn=978-0-495-09506-4}}</ref><ref name="Engel1994">{{citation |last=Engel |first=S. Morris |title=Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language: The Language Trap|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jue4i6VVly0C&pg=PA102 |year=1994 |publisher=Courier Dover Publications |isbn=978-0-486-28274-9 |page=102}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{cite web |url=https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html |title=Logical Fallacies Handlist |last=Wheeler |first=Dr. L. Kip |website=Carson-Newman University (Study Guide) |location=Room 309 in the English Department suite of Henderson 311 |access-date=23 May 2019 |quote= Special Pleading, in which the writer creates a universal principle, then insists that principle does not for some reason apply to the issue at hand. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230606081306/https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html |archive-date=6 June 2023 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{cite web |url=https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#SpecialPleading |title=Special Pleading |last=Dowden |first=Bradley |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=California State University, Sacramento |access-date=23 May 2019 |quote=[A] form of inconsistency in which the reasoner doesn't apply [their] principles consistently…[T]he fallacy of applying a general principle to various situations but not applying it to a special situation that interests the arguer even though the general principle properly applies to that special situation, too.}}</ref> It applies a [[double standard]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/PH/Persuasion/Persuasion3.html |title=Fallacious Reasoning and Propaganda Techniques |last= LaMorte |first=Wayne W. |website=Persuasive Messages |publisher=Boston University School of Public Health |access-date=23 May 2019 |quote=Special Pleading: committed by applying a double standard exemplified in choice of words.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://carm.org/logical-fallacies-or-fallacies-argumentation |title=Logical fallacies or fallacies in argumentation |last=Slick |first=Matt |date=18 May 2008 |website=Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry |access-date=23 May 2019 |quote= Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a standard to another that is different from a standard applied to oneself.}}</ref>

In the classic distinction among [[material fallacy|material fallacies]], [[List of cognitive biases|cognitive fallacies]], and [[formal fallacy|formal fallacies]], special pleading most likely falls within the category of cognitive fallacy, because it would seem to relate to "[[wikt:lip service|lip service]]", rationalization, and diversion (abandonment of discussion). Special pleading also often resembles the [[List of fallacies|"appeal to" logical fallacies]].<ref>This division of fallacy categories is found in introductory texts such as ''Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument'', W. Ward Fearnside, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959. {{OCLC|710677}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Special%20Pleading.html |title=Special Pleading |website=Bruce Thompson's Fallacy Page |publisher=Critical Thinking (PHIL 200) [study guide] |location=Palomar College |access-date=23 May 2019 |quote=The argument defends a position by claiming that the opponent lacks the necessary perspective (experiences or credentials) to appreciate the position (or the arguments in support of it). This lack allegedly makes the opponent unqualified to critique the position... [t]his extreme version of Special Pleading is a tactic often used to argue that no action can be judged morally wrong, since no one has the perspective to be able to judge another person's moral code... [e.g.] [[Association fallacy#Honor by association|'My opponent can't know what's best for our fair community. He wasn't born and raised here, like I was]].'}}</ref>

In medieval philosophy, it was not presumed that wherever a distinction is claimed, a relevant basis for the distinction should exist and be substantiated. Special pleading subverts a presumption of [[existential import]].{{Citation needed|reason=Sources on such a broad claim about (Presumably Western) Medieval philosophy are necessary, see edit notes|date=April 2022}}{{Explain|date=April 2022}}

== Examples ==
A difficult case is when a possible criticism is made relatively immune to investigation. This immunity may take the forms of:

* Creation of an ''[[Ad hoc hypothesis|ad-hoc]]'' exception to prevent the rule from backfiring against the claim:
**Example: ''Everyone has a duty to help the police do their job, no matter who the suspect is. That is why we must support investigations into corruption in the police department. No person is above the law. Of course, if the police come knocking on my door to ask about my neighbors and the robberies in our building, I know nothing. I’m not about to rat on anybody.''<ref name=":2" />
* "You aren't like me, so you do not even have a right to think about or hold opinions on my plight."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Special%20Pleading.html |title=Special Pleading |website=Bruce Thompson's Fallacy Page |publisher=Critical Thinking (PHIL 200) [study guide] |location=Palomar College |access-date=23 May 2019 |quote=‘You aren't like me, so you do not even have a right to think about or hold opinions on my plight’... [t]he fallacy of Special Pleading presupposes that some differences are so great that the human capacity of empathy cannot cross them.}}</ref>
** Example:  ''Keep your advice to yourself.  If you didn't grow up the way I did, then you can't understand.''

==Statistical==
This variation occurs when the interpretation of the relevant statistic is "massaged" by looking for ways to reclassify or requantify data from one portion of results, but not applying the same scrutiny to other categories.<ref name="Fischer1970">{{citation |title = Historians' Fallacies: Toward A Logic of Historical Thought |publisher= HarperCollins |isbn= 978-0-06-131545-9 |year=1970 |location= New York |oclc= 185446787 |series= Harper torchbooks |edition= first  |first= D. H. |last= Fischer |author-link= David Hackett Fischer |pages= 110–113 |url= https://archive.org/stream/HistoriansFallaciesTowardALogicOfHistoricalThought/historians_fallacies_toward_a_logic_of_historical_thought#page/n131/mode/2up}}</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Cherry picking (fallacy)]]
* [[Courtier's reply]]
* [[Exception that proves the rule]]
* [[Hard cases make bad law]]
* [[Moving the goalposts]]
* [[No true Scotsman]]
* [[Relativist fallacy]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html Special pleading at the Fallacy Files]
* [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html Special pleading at the Nizkor Project] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121019131337/http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html |date=2012-10-19 }}

{{Fallacies}}
{{Pseudoscience}}

[[Category:Relevance fallacies]]