>> One of the other fallacies that we saw in Unit 4 was the fallacy of attacking a
straw man. That is, to say objecting to some position
or some argument, giving an argument of your own against a position or argument
while you haven't adequately understood the target of your attack.
And I think a very nice example of that fallacy is provided by the argument,
monogamy is an obsolete concept submitted by Serge Doussantousse.
I hope I have pronounced Serge's name correctly.
Please forgive me if I have not, Serge. The argument goes like this.
Premise one, monogamy condemns lawfully wedded spouses to a single sexual partner.
Premise two, nowadays, sexual relationships for most people are still
based on religious conservative control. Premise three, but people live longer, are
better educated, their social network is expanding limitlessly, but they lose
sexual interest in their life long spouse after some years.
Premise four, regular sexual practice is proof of longevity and health.
Premise five, desire to live with the spouse lasts longer than sexual desire.
Therefore, conclusion, having sexual partners besides the spouse helps each
person to accept sexual droughted home and save a couple from divorce and
frustration. That's Serge's argument.
Okay. Now, while that other argument may have
something to be said for and while the conclusion of that argument may for all
I'm going to say today, be true, I will argue that, that argument attacks a strong
man. No one who advances the principle of
monogamy for humans, the principle of one spouse one sexual partner, is going to
claim that monogamy is easy or painless or without cost to the people who are
enjoined to participate in it. If it were easy and painless like, let's
say, eating fine food, then it wouldn't be something that anyone would have to be
ordered to do. There's no commandment to eat good food
since eating good food is something that we all enjoy doing.
We don't need to be ordered to do it. We don't need to be convinced to do it.
Monogamy, on the other hand, is something is that not everyone enjoys participating
in and that's why ordering people or convincing people to participate in it, is
thought to be worthwhile. It's because not everyone enjoys
participating in it and monogamy does carry costs including perhaps some of the
costs that Serge enumerates. So, the people who profound monogamy as a
way of life, who advance the principle of one spouse one sexual partner, they aren't
saying this has no costs at all, why would you prefer anything else.
They're saying, this is all things considered, the way you ought to live your
life. Now, why is it the way you want to live
your life? Well, there are different arguments they
could have for that. There might be an argument for the social
stability value of monogamy. Maybe if there were no institution of
monogamy, that would result in widespread chaos and intrigue, and internecine
fighting among people. Maybe it's the value of raising children
in a household where both parents are present and aren't taking vacations to
have romantic getaways with other people. But whatever exactly the value of monogamy
is alleged to be by its partisans, that value is suppose to overwhelm the obvious
cost of monogamy. It's not that monogamy is thought to be
without any obvious costs. If it were without any obvious cost, then
why would people need to be enjoying to participate in it?
So, the people who advance monogamy as a way of life recognize that it has costs,
including the costs that Serge alleges. But they think that the benefits of it,
outway those costs. And Serge does not, at any point in his
argument, consider the benefits and weighed those alleged benefits against the
costs that he enumerates. That's what makes his argument guilty of
the fallacy of the straw man. He's attacking a target and making points
that, while they might be true, are still only partial because he hasn't considered
everything that has to be said on behalf of the principle of monogamy that he's
attacking.