It might help to know that the Internet is filled with misinformation. I checked out the "Master List of Logical Fallacies" and it is filled with fake information. For example, "Actions have Consequences" is not a fallacy by any means. The author appears to have no idea what a logical fallacy is. There is also no such thing as "An Appeal to Heaven" fallacy, which appears to have been written by an atheist to attack people of faith since it can be applied to anyone who believes they are doing God's will.
A true logical fallacy is a clearly defined error in reasoning used to support or refute an argument. Anything that is a logical fallacy can be proven false using sound logic. If someone's argument/reasoning can't be proven false, it's not a logical fallacy.
A cognitive bias refers to people interpreting evidence based on their existing beliefs, which is something everyone does.
What you've described in your OP primarily has to do with ethics/morals.
I agree with most of this. But I have to point that out because this post is about the parts I don't agree with
There's a problem with formal logic IRL: it doesn't work well with human thought and human languages (both of which are limited, irregular random, and internally inconsistent.
That doesn't make formal logic useless of course, but applying it IRL is tricky, and misuse is rife.
For example "All <subset> are members of <superset>". People routinely misuse that (literally turn it into a lie) by manipulating the specification of the categories (often, but not always, via equivocation (which
is an "informal fallacy"))
It's easy to unwrap, but I've rarely seen it done, despite it
still being a "hot topic".
(Demonstrate the sets are not identical by reversing it, then ask "what's the difference"?
But IRL It's about as useful as the "how do you know your pet is ...?" question, which does something similar.
It shuts people up, but doesn't change their minds - which takes us back to the OP and why we're both posting in this thread
The point though is that those are high-visibility examples of the problems of using formal logic with other humans
Our minds did not even evolve to be rational, let alone strictly logical.
Including "Actions have Consequences" in a list of fallacies just proves the writer is an airhead, because it's so obvious. It's adjacent though, in a way that probably highlights the writer's motivation:
disbelief in "Cause and Effect" causes a lot of unnecessary problems.
But IMO it's actually just evidence that humans are not naturally rational: actions/consequences has to be taught to young children, and it's difficult, because they are (as they should be) extremely selfish, extremely poor planners, and poorly anchored in reality.
Which is fine in children, but if those and related skills (like emotional and behavioral regulation) aren't taught you get ... 2025, and the
need for discussions like this one /lol.
IMO "Appeal to Heaven" is a reasonable case of "Appeal to Authority". It's certainly been common, and has a long history. Most religions have a version of "Deus Vult", and some quite bad things have been done (some right now) using it as a justification.
A bit like the subset/superset application of equivocation, it hides the irrational part, and if it's challenged with formal logic, you'll bump into powerful defenses ("dissent is betrayal; betrayal of our core principles is heresy").
But allowing for the apparent biases of the writer of that list of fallacies, it might still be useful. If you looks at the different common examples of irrational arguments, there are a huge number of them, and it's more efficient to learn them that to figure them out "on the fly" during a discussion. Though perhaps fewer these days, since the requirements for simulated rationality are falling as fast as the thresholds for offense.
In 2025, "weaponized politeness" is enough /lol.
What you've described in your OP primarily has to do with ethics/morals.
We could discuss this here if you like, because it's linked to topic.
But I'd like to start with definitions, because they may have been manipulated while I wasn't paying attention.
My TLDR take:
Morals are codified
principles concerning "good" and "bad" motivations and behaviors in a social/cultural context.
Ethics are closer
rules of behavior for use when errors are likely to have serious negative consequences, and the principles are not easily applied.
BTW I know a lot of definitions claim there's a large overlap between ethics and morals. And that a lot of people make no distinction. But an overlap doesn't make them identical, nor establish that one is a subset of the other.
And short definition of this kind work best if they're vague about the domain as whole ,and clear about differences/distinctions within the domain.
You don't have to agree with those definitions OFC, but I'm satisfied with them.
FWIW I'm interested because the concept of "Moral Inversion" has been turning up lately. it's not a new idea OFC, but IMO it would be very useful it if entered the mainstream vocabulary.
I've been using references to the Star Wars TV show "The Acolyte" (the Sith are the bad guys, and the Jedi the bad guys") due to lack of a well-known term for it, but it hasn't been working well. OTOH "Relative Morality" works, but it's bad sometimes (that's how the airheads making The Acolyte" reversed good & bad), and good sometimes (rigid principles and rules based on "absolute good and absolute evil" are wildly impractical).
There also a widely used clip from (I think) a Brit comedy show, where one guy asks his fellow villain "Are
we the baddies)".
