>> 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.