Should we use legitimate fallacies? A case study of whataboutism in the discourse on the Russian-Ukrainian war

Result code in IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216275%3A25210%2F24%3A39921552" target="_blank" >RIV/00216275:25210/24:39921552 - isvavai.cz</a>

Result on the web

<a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/10511431.2024.2403273?scroll=top&needAccess=true" target="_blank" >https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/10511431.2024.2403273?scroll=top&needAccess=true</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2024.2403273" target="_blank" >10.1080/10511431.2024.2403273</a>

Result language

angličtina

Original language name

Should we use legitimate fallacies? A case study of whataboutism in the discourse on the Russian-Ukrainian war

Original language description

Although the use of argumentative fallacies is generally prohibited in discourse, a significant part of fallacy studies consists in identifying the specific circumstances where the use of a fallacy is permissible. However, this literature often remains silent on whether a fallacy should be used even when deemed legitimate. This silence is problematic, as it suggests that the legitimacy is the sole criterion for deploying a fallacy. In this paper, I challenge this approach by demonstrating that even when a fallacy is legitimate, its use could still jeopardize the arguer’s goals. I base this argument on an analysis of a specific instance of the whataboutism fallacy used by Noam Chomsky in his commentary on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I show that Chomsky’s references to the United States’ actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are better understood as broadening the context of the discussion rather than distracting or even justifying Russian actions. This is what makes Chomsky’s whataboutisms plausibly legitimate. But while these whataboutisms might be legitimate, I argue, drawing on a cost-benefit analysis of decision to argue framework, that Chomsky has compelling reasons to avoid using them. Real-life examples show that such arguments are prone to misunderstanding and misuse. I conclude that the risks associated with Chomsky’s whataboutism outweigh the potential benefits, suggesting that he should avoid their deployment. This case study reveals a broader lesson for the fallacy literature: it must explicitly address whether the legitimacy of a fallacy is sufficient justification for its use.

Czech name

—

Czech description

—

Type

J_imp - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database

CEP classification

—

OECD FORD branch

60302 - Ethics (except ethics related to specific subfields)

Project

—

Continuities

S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach

Publication year

2024

Confidentiality

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Name of the periodical

Argumentation and Advocacy

ISSN

1051-1431

e-ISSN

2576-8476

Volume of the periodical

Neuveden

Issue of the periodical within the volume

11. září 2024

Country of publishing house

GB - UNITED KINGDOM

Number of pages

16

Pages from-to

1-16

UT code for WoS article

001310445000001

EID of the result in the Scopus database

—