1 00:00:00,012 --> 00:00:06,627 >> One of the other fallacies that we saw in Unit 4 was the fallacy of attacking a 2 00:00:06,627 --> 00:00:11,067 straw man. That is, to say objecting to some position 3 00:00:11,067 --> 00:00:17,535 or some argument, giving an argument of your own against a position or argument 4 00:00:17,535 --> 00:00:23,150 while you haven't adequately understood the target of your attack. 5 00:00:23,150 --> 00:00:28,426 And I think a very nice example of that fallacy is provided by the argument, 6 00:00:28,426 --> 00:00:33,369 monogamy is an obsolete concept submitted by Serge Doussantousse. 7 00:00:33,369 --> 00:00:37,170 I hope I have pronounced Serge's name correctly. 8 00:00:37,170 --> 00:00:42,600 Please forgive me if I have not, Serge. The argument goes like this. 9 00:00:42,600 --> 00:00:50,121 Premise one, monogamy condemns lawfully wedded spouses to a single sexual partner. 10 00:00:50,121 --> 00:00:56,367 Premise two, nowadays, sexual relationships for most people are still 11 00:00:56,367 --> 00:01:02,984 based on religious conservative control. Premise three, but people live longer, are 12 00:01:02,984 --> 00:01:08,143 better educated, their social network is expanding limitlessly, but they lose 13 00:01:08,143 --> 00:01:12,047 sexual interest in their life long spouse after some years. 14 00:01:12,047 --> 00:01:16,764 Premise four, regular sexual practice is proof of longevity and health. 15 00:01:16,764 --> 00:01:21,822 Premise five, desire to live with the spouse lasts longer than sexual desire. 16 00:01:21,823 --> 00:01:29,752 Therefore, conclusion, having sexual partners besides the spouse helps each 17 00:01:29,752 --> 00:01:37,072 person to accept sexual droughted home and save a couple from divorce and 18 00:01:37,072 --> 00:01:41,277 frustration. That's Serge's argument. 19 00:01:41,277 --> 00:01:45,179 Okay. Now, while that other argument may have 20 00:01:45,179 --> 00:01:51,963 something to be said for and while the conclusion of that argument may for all 21 00:01:51,963 --> 00:01:58,959 I'm going to say today, be true, I will argue that, that argument attacks a strong 22 00:01:58,959 --> 00:02:02,772 man. No one who advances the principle of 23 00:02:02,772 --> 00:02:10,008 monogamy for humans, the principle of one spouse one sexual partner, is going to 24 00:02:10,008 --> 00:02:16,812 claim that monogamy is easy or painless or without cost to the people who are 25 00:02:16,812 --> 00:02:22,951 enjoined to participate in it. If it were easy and painless like, let's 26 00:02:22,951 --> 00:02:29,383 say, eating fine food, then it wouldn't be something that anyone would have to be 27 00:02:29,383 --> 00:02:33,557 ordered to do. There's no commandment to eat good food 28 00:02:33,557 --> 00:02:38,181 since eating good food is something that we all enjoy doing. 29 00:02:38,182 --> 00:02:42,986 We don't need to be ordered to do it. We don't need to be convinced to do it. 30 00:02:42,986 --> 00:02:48,459 Monogamy, on the other hand, is something is that not everyone enjoys participating 31 00:02:48,459 --> 00:02:53,541 in and that's why ordering people or convincing people to participate in it, is 32 00:02:53,541 --> 00:02:57,714 thought to be worthwhile. It's because not everyone enjoys 33 00:02:57,714 --> 00:03:03,342 participating in it and monogamy does carry costs including perhaps some of the 34 00:03:03,342 --> 00:03:08,325 costs that Serge enumerates. So, the people who profound monogamy as a 35 00:03:08,325 --> 00:03:14,065 way of life, who advance the principle of one spouse one sexual partner, they aren't 36 00:03:14,065 --> 00:03:18,781 saying this has no costs at all, why would you prefer anything else. 37 00:03:18,781 --> 00:03:23,523 They're saying, this is all things considered, the way you ought to live your 38 00:03:23,523 --> 00:03:26,252 life. Now, why is it the way you want to live 39 00:03:26,252 --> 00:03:29,372 your life? Well, there are different arguments they 40 00:03:29,372 --> 00:03:33,525 could have for that. There might be an argument for the social 41 00:03:33,525 --> 00:03:38,541 stability value of monogamy. Maybe if there were no institution of 42 00:03:38,541 --> 00:03:44,571 monogamy, that would result in widespread chaos and intrigue, and internecine 43 00:03:44,571 --> 00:03:49,949 fighting among people. Maybe it's the value of raising children 44 00:03:49,949 --> 00:03:56,917 in a household where both parents are present and aren't taking vacations to 45 00:03:56,917 --> 00:04:04,911 have romantic getaways with other people. But whatever exactly the value of monogamy 46 00:04:04,911 --> 00:04:12,080 is alleged to be by its partisans, that value is suppose to overwhelm the obvious 47 00:04:12,080 --> 00:04:16,899 cost of monogamy. It's not that monogamy is thought to be 48 00:04:16,899 --> 00:04:22,688 without any obvious costs. If it were without any obvious cost, then 49 00:04:22,688 --> 00:04:27,591 why would people need to be enjoying to participate in it? 50 00:04:27,591 --> 00:04:33,801 So, the people who advance monogamy as a way of life recognize that it has costs, 51 00:04:33,801 --> 00:04:40,018 including the costs that Serge alleges. But they think that the benefits of it, 52 00:04:40,018 --> 00:04:44,225 outway those costs. And Serge does not, at any point in his 53 00:04:44,225 --> 00:04:50,073 argument, consider the benefits and weighed those alleged benefits against the 54 00:04:50,073 --> 00:04:55,038 costs that he enumerates. That's what makes his argument guilty of 55 00:04:55,038 --> 00:05:00,847 the fallacy of the straw man. He's attacking a target and making points 56 00:05:00,847 --> 00:05:07,637 that, while they might be true, are still only partial because he hasn't considered 57 00:05:07,637 --> 00:05:13,942 everything that has to be said on behalf of the principle of monogamy that he's 58 00:05:13,942 --> 00:05:15,062 attacking.