Motive Fallacy
Oraizan
This is something I feel needs to be said as of recent events. For those that don't know what Motive Fallacy is keep reading and I will happily explain. To make it clear, I have not been a victum of this type of ploy. I have simply noticed it, that is all. Please take a full read, I know it is a lot but I believe it to be important.
What it is
To put it simply, it is a ploy used in debates to win against the opponent. Unfortunately it is not the proper way to win a debate. Instead of getting to the root of the problem and debating it in a civil manner, one person will decide to look into what their opponent gains with hopes of winning from motives of their opponent.
For example... Let's pretend that we are discussing which channel on TV is better (I know, silly, bear with it) and you work for say America's HBO. You decide that HBO really is your favourite Channel, and so you suggest that one. Should your opponent automatically jump up and say 'You are only saying that because you work for them' that is Motive Fallacy. Whether you work for them or not, that does not mean that you are in-fact wrong.
Of course those involved in the debate want to win. Whether your opponent has something to gain from their side of the debate or not, pointing it out does not automatically make you right in any type of debate. To be honest, it only makes you look silly. It does not suffice to show that their point of view is false. If it did, entering into a debate would be self-defeating because attempting to win would immediately show your position to be wrong. To refute their view you need to show what is wrong with their case, not what is wrong with their motives. Show the facts, explain them.
What a ploy
Unfortunatly this ploy is universal, it happens everywhere in our daily lives. The positive side to that is simply pointing it out, though sometimes mean, can be effective in getting people to stop. In politics, Motive Fallacy is a big thing. They can easily win the debate by this tactic. (to be honest, I always wonder how people who only argue about motives get elected in the first place IRL...) Of course winning is their main goal. With that said, I am commiting a Motive Fallacy to counter a motive fallacy. Haha~
Those willing to change the subject of the debate to motives can easily be accused of having bad motives behind their point of view. I would even be brave enough to say that usually the first person who comits a motive fallacy is the one who wants to 'win-at-all-costs no matter how right-or-wrong'. Though that is not always the case. Think about it, an honest person who knows the truth and can prove they are right has no need to bring the opponents motives into play, do they? I would say no but I suppose that is also not -always- the case, just the common situation.
Japan will not grow with this kind of ploy in debate. It will do the opposite, stop Japan from making any real progress. If people cannot debate a topic with different view points, we can never know which side will actually help Japan or improve the topic of debate. The one side of a debate using Motive Fallacy could in-fact be the worst choice, and therefore we did not pick the option that benefits Japan, just the less hated one due to motive fallacy alone. This will only stunt our growth. I would also like to point out that good things can be done with bad motives.
Let's take war as an example. Say a President decided to start a war because somebody from the other country called them a rude name. Well yes his motives would be terrible right? Kill thousands of people over such a silly thing. But what if (even though bad motives) there were slaves and people imprisoned in that country? The war may have been initially started because of bad motives, but it saved many people's lives!
With evidence and good reason, bad or good motives, the end result should always be chosen based on facts that show which option is better.
Japan Today
I have been away from eJapan for a while now due to IRL reasons which don't need to be discussed publicly. I was very disappointed when catching up on the forums to see this kind of silly ploy all over debates. If you cannot prove that your oppnent is wrong through facts then maybe he is right. Bringing out motives to win a debate and gain side benefits is just sadning. I will start pointing out Motive Fallacy for those you cannot recognize it. I hope that once pointed out or noticed, people will disregard those comments and not let them be a factor in deciding any debate.
Hopefully now that I have written this article it will stop, and those commiting the Fallacy will be able to accept it as is, a mistake. There is no reason to accuse people of false motives during debate, and there is no reason for the person you accuse to think any less of you from this point on. Yes, motive fallacy tends to make people not like you, but we are all grown up enough to forgive and forget.
When I was eBorn almost 7 months ago motives were rarely brought into play, and I would like to see this again. As I have said, it is disappointing to see friends, rivals, people I don't even really know, commiting Motive Fallacy.
When is it okay
Should we have a debate purely on the motives from a government offical, then it is proper to discuss it. However as I stated before, it needs to be supported heavily by evidence.
For example, lets say we find a government official not doing their duty right or stealing government funds for personal use. The person who noticed this should put together evidence and make a proposal to debate about it. During this type of debate where motives are the topic, it would be perfectly fine. Though only about the first person, and nobody discussing whether it was right or wrong. (always talk to the person in private about it before accusing!)
Stop changing the subject, get to the point!
~Oraizan
Comments
"always talk to the person in private about it before accusing"
The truth has been said here
I have not seen much of this in our debates. We have been admirably deliberative, and thoughtful on our national forums: http://nipponblog.net/forum/index.php" target="_blank">http://nipponblog.net/forum/index.php
Sure, certain people are attack dogs; but they do get shouted down...
Is there something in particular that you are referring to?
I don't really want to get banned for quoting/posting links 😶 Talk to me in the IRC and I will show what I was talking about.
Voted
While you bring up a good point, you seem optimistic about the reactions you may receive in pointing out these fallacies. This stuff will just fall on deaf ears. 🙁
I concur thefallenmage.
Simply, natural human nature is simply solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. We will simply always be in the state of the war of all against all, and simply, people are alway only self interested.
I sign this article.
Mursu approved!
I agree. Often people do things that you can't understand until you've talked to them about it.
To Assume is to make an ass our of u and me >> (or how I rather say it... to put you and me behind an ass, which is equally unpleasant for both of us.)
Am I doing it right
A typo from Oraizan? I'm surprised. 😛
I anticipate seeing your policy put to action. Pointing out people's mistakes in speech delivery and argument is one of my favorite pastimes.
This argumant falls down flat on its face as you seem to have chosen not to notice the fact that many people DO have a vested interest in presenting certain views as their own 'personal' views and you are now planning on going round pointing fingers and shouting 'motive fallacy!' at those who point this out?
Please excuse me for not happily signing up to join the 'motive fallacy' police force you seem to want to set up.
Interesting! Suggest to link as 'must-read' material for newly elected members of congress and the cabinet. Along with the constitution, of course.
Motive fallacy... sounds so evil!
Akki and TFM; It never hurts to try. I think my article was neutral and more then fair enough to listen and give a chance
Fae; Interesting Analogy.. o.o
Chaotic; Well... I have never seen you commit a motive fallacy, so yes?
Danny; I made a typo? 😨
Well the main point of writing an article about it was so that people understand why it is wrong. hopefully they can also recognize it for what it is from now on as well. Thank you for the comment!
no1kevlin; You are excused, I was expecting you not to sign up.
Tanaka; That would be interesting, having it as a must-read for new congresspeople~. Maybe the current or next president will set something up in regards to guides for debating, I would love to take part in that.
I never thought about it before, but it does sound kind of... eerie. 😶
Thank you for the comments everybody! I am glad people even made it through the article without falling asleep haha.
I suspect that the "RL" pictures you use are a fallacy tbh, unless there is some kind of social networking site you can show us to prove your gender.
I don't mean to cause offense but there are far more men pretending to be women than women on the internet. Even less of those women are slim, young and blond.
Agreed Goku.
I think the number of us that have spoken with Oraizan over Skype, and video chats can vouch for that Goku.
When did that become the issue?
I don't understand why motives should be a forbidden topic. Each discussion takes several different paths. I think there is a difference between discussing the motives of those involved in the discussion, and using the discussion of motives to circumvent the topic. In that sense, i do agree with you, but I think you apply it too broadly. For instance, in your example with the HBO debate, it is just a friendly discussion, no party has anything to gain other than pride or something subjective. Once one of the parties stands to gain something, motives are a very serious issue which should be brought up as part of a discussion.
If the assumption is that there is no hostility, that we are just having civilized discussion, there is no reason not to display and question motives openly.
Goku; Actually its very common in Sweden for girls to be using the internet. As walorm said, I have also been on the radio show. People like: Kokawa, Tohru, Darshu, Metallon, have my facebook. I don't really see somebody pretending to be a girl hunting down tons of photo's of one girl. Haha funny I have to defend my gender, thats kinda sad. Are you going to question every other girl in eJapan now?
Chaotic; yes the examples were broad. I wanted to keep the idea simple so that it was easier to understand. I think debates here in eRep about anything that -should- be taken seriously should keep motives out of them for the sake of friendly debate that actually gets us somewhere. Its typical for people to gain something from a debate, but if there is no evidence that their point of view also helps it isn't good to deny it based on accusations of bad motives.
Well, like I said, i can agree on that point, that a motive shouldn't end a debate by itself. But I don't agree that it shouldn't be an issue. A conflict of interests may have wide-ranging effects beyond the original issue, and can give the appearance of corruption.
In no1kevlin's article he posted, the guy in the youtube video he posted used the example of the tobacco industry in the US, and I think that's a perfect example. As laymen, if we were to take those "experts" on their word, then we would believe that tobacco was harmless, maybe even beneficial.
I don't know, I'm not arguing against you really, I just think it's common sense. There are situations where motivations are applicable to the argument, or where discussing them will not detract from the overall debate. I don't see a problem with that. It's when you try and "strawman" the motivations, or try to draw the debate away from the original issue surreptitiously that it turns into something else.
Fair enough. It is always wise to be cautious on the internets 🙂
i have to agree with crawling chaos here. motives are usually valid points in a discussion, imho.
Chaos; I suppose, but what I have seen so far in eRep it has been invalid uses of it.
Goku; Yeah but its mean when I'm clearly not faking it.
Good article Ora!
I find far more people committing the "Arguing from authority" fallacy than "motive fallacy"
I can't count how many times someone has made the "you're a noob and I have 1300 experience so STFU" Or my favorite "What have you done in eRepublik!? I've been X minister for X months so I'm right"
Arguing about motives is the best way to counter these "experts" in a more convincing way then pointing out there are no "experts".