Phil Cook wrote:
> I'm trying to think of the term used to describe a particular fallacy -
> 
> 'If you do it for X (greater) you have to do it for Y (lesser)'

Technically this would be called a non sequitur (Latin for "does not 
follow"); it refers to any argument of "if A, then B" for which the 
relationship between A and B does not itself necessitate that A implies B.

The implied middle term in this case is "all situations must be treated 
equally."  Since this middle term is the real bone of contention, it 
should not be accepted without conclusive support.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message