Special Pleading

Special Pleading

Also known as: the double standard, the ad hoc exemption

Description

Special pleading is the fallacy of applying a rule or standard to others while exempting oneself, or one's own position, from it without justification. The exemption is typically introduced only when the rule threatens the arguer's conclusion.

Form

1. All X have property P.
2. Y is an X.
3. But Y does not have property P (because it would be inconvenient if it did).

Examples

• "Everything that exists has a cause. God exists. God does not have a cause." (See First Cause Argument, Kalam Cosmological Argument.)
• "Complex things require a designer. God is maximally complex. God does not require a designer." (See Teleological Argument - Argument from Design.)
• "Psychic powers are real, but they do not work when sceptics are present."
• "I know the study was retracted, but my study is different."

Notes

• Special pleading is not the same as drawing a relevant distinction. If the arguer can show why the case is different, in terms that do not depend on the conclusion, there is no fallacy. The fallacy lies in asserting the exemption without such a reason, or with a reason that only the conclusion supplies.
• It is closely related to Circular Reasoning (the exemption is justified by the conclusion) and the No True Scotsman fallacy (the rule is redefined to exclude the counter-example).
• A useful test: would the arguer accept the same exemption if their opponent claimed it?

#fallacy