Logical Fallacies II - The Ad Populum Defense

Another logical fallacy commonly used by municipal officials is the opposite of the Ad Hominem Attack: the Ad Populum ('[appeal] to the people') Defense.

The typical Ad Populum Defense is 'Everybody does it.' There are two simple responses to this. One is, 'How do you know what everybody else does?' In other words, you can't show that what you are saying is true. Another is, 'Even if you could show that everybody does it, that doesn't make it right.' Or, as your mother used to say, 'If everybody jumped off a cliff, would you?' Why a motherly response? Because the Ad Populum Defense is a child's defense. It's not only a refuge of scoundrels, but a refuge of children who can't think of anything better.

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

The most important lesson to learn from this logical fallacy is to become suspicious whenever someone argues a case in terms of 'every' or 'all.' It sounds like they're showing that they are simply one example of a general case, and we often argue in terms of what is typical. But because claims about 'every' and 'all' cannot be proven true or false, they have no place in logical argument. They are not meant to be part of an argument, but instead part of a defense, a way to manipulate people into approving of their behavior.

What about 'most people'? That doesn't hold up logically either. 'Most people' may be wrong. A logical argument in your defense needs to show that what you did was right. In an unethical environment, most people do the wrong thing or, at least, do and say nothing when others do something wrong. There are many towns and cities where 'pay to play' is not only accepted, but expected. Does that make it right?

What about the argument, 'It seemed to me to be right, because most people were doing it or accepting it.' Here the official is admitting that it may be wrong, but that he or she was corrupted or blinded by an unethical environment. This is a more legitimate defense, but once you admit that you're wrong and that most people are doing it, you have to name names, to show clearly that there was a serious, general problem, and then work to solve it. However, even if others in the city have been doing it, it would take a very limited vision to believe that 'pay-to-play' is generally accepted. There are too many news stories, there are ethics courses, and there's too much talk about the problems of 'pay-to-play' for many people to seriously argue they didn't know it was wrong.

It's not just politicians who embrace the childish but effective Ad Populum Defense. Citizens are just as likely to use it, especially in the form, 'All politicians are like that.' They all steal, help their buddies, care only about getting re-elected. Not only is this Ad Populum Defense of crooked politicians false, but it helps to make it more true, because it allows citizens to convince themselves (and justify themselves to others) that it's okay voting for crooked politicians. This makes it harder for honest people to get elected. And it makes it easier to accept it when politicians use the Ad Populum Defense, so the defense becomes more effective.

Citizens' use of the Ad Populum Defense does as much to undermine trust in government as the most unethical government official.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics