FALLACIES as “SINS OF THE TONGUE”
From the perspectives of truth and rationality, fallacy theory criticizes language and speech as vectors of error and deception, see evaluation; norms. Other cultures have established different foundations for critiquing language and speech. In their reconstruction of the history of the “sins of the tongue” in the Middle Ages, Casagrande & Vecchio (1991) demonstrated the connection between speech and sin. The focus then was not on constructing a rational discourse, but rather on achieving sinless, “impeccable,” discourse, or holy discourse. The nature of wrongdoing has shifted: what was once considered sinful in the name of religion is now considered fallacious or sophistical in the name of rationality. Whether the concern is sin or fallacies, the salvation of the soul or the rational guidance of the mind, the matter always concerns the regulation of verbal behavior and the discipline of speech.
Casagrande and Vecchio synthesized data from various medieval treatises into a list of fourteen sins. These sins, or religious fallacies were intended to criticize interactions within a religious context in which hierarchy and the valorization of authority played central roles, see politeness.
Establishing a connection between the theory of fallacies and the « sins of the tongue » does not disparage either party. On the contrary, this connection, is intended to demonstrate the deep anthropological roots of discourse criticism.
1. Seven Interactional Sins
1.1 Lying
Telling the truth–the whole truth and nothing but the truth–is certainly a fundamental obligation for a non-fallacious debate. Lying is basically defined as telling someone something that is false when they have no independent access to the full truth. In theological systems, lying is a sin, as it is in the contemporary lay world, a fundamental violation of Grice’s cooperative principle, see manipulation.
Aggravated lying: Perjury and false testimony
In legal rhetoric, oaths and testimonies are two important instruments for establishing the truth, and are considered as “non-technical” evidence. Violating these oaths and testimonies corresponds to the sins of perjury, perjurium, and false testimony, falsum testimonium. These are serious interactional sins because they involve lying about the sacred foundations of social order.
1.2 Against quarreling
Rivalry, conflict, fighting (contentio), and discussion (disputatio) are terms that can refer to the very activity of arguing. Therefore, it can be said that arguing is potentially considered sinful at its very core. It is the sin of the intellectual monks, and was undoubtedly Abelard’s. The transition from the sinful to the fallacious is explicit in the Port-Royal Logic, which condemns an excessive love of dispute, and a spirit of contradiction are condemned as sophisms of self-esteem (#6 and #7). These are fundamental features of the characters of “those who contradict” (Arnauld and Nicole [1662], p. 272). Debate is subject to a moral imperative: contradiction must be genuine, and not “malicious and envious” (ibid.)-or, in the terms of legal pathology, querulous. Such a debate can legitimately be rejected.
In the following paragraphs, we distinguish two categories of sins of interactional positioning: sins committed “against the other”, or the person with whom one argues (§ 2.2), and, on the other hand, the sins committed “against oneself” as a speaker (§2.3). In both cases, In both cases, the issue is the illegitimate treatment of interaction partners, see politeness.
2.2 Three Kinds of Sins Against the Partner
Undue negative treatment includes insulting remarks (contumelia) and slander (detractio). These two sins are personal attacks, and examples of the ad personam fallacy. Derisio, or contemptuous mockery, may be related to this fallacy, see ad hominem; dismissal.
Negative treatment under the guise of the positivity is the mechanism of refutation by self-evidence is implemented through irony, ironia. Contemporary theories of irony usually only marginally address the intention to hurt the other person..
Undue positive treatment includes flattery (adulatio), and even simple praise (laudatio). These two sins involve the same interactive mechanisms found in the fallacy of modesty, ad verecundiam, where the speaker unduly humiliates himself in front of his partner. Adulatio and laudatio, flattery and praise, encourage pride, and pride is a sin. Logic, religion, and courtesy converge on politeness.
2.3 Two types of Sins Against Oneself
Undue positive treatment,that is, boasting, iactantia. This ethotic sin stigmatizes the projection in the discussion of an overly positive self-image, in the discussion, see ethos. Politeness theory also notes that partners in ordinary interactions avoid immoderate self-praise..
Undue negative treatment is the symmetrical sin of the sin of unduly positive treatment of one’s partner, see modesty. Taciturnitas is the sin of remaining silent when one should speak. It may be related to the ad verecundiam fallacy in which “human respect” inhibits criticism.
4. Murmuring: A Sophism of Disobedience
A person who complains against authority commits the sin of murmuring (murmur), see a fortiori. A person who refuses to yield to the force of the best argument, having little to oppose to it except an hypothetical intimate conviction or sense of justice, can be guilty of the same kind of fallacy, see dissensus; rules. Disobedience is irrational, illegal and sinful.
5. The Sin of Eloquence
Eloquence, seen as an abundance of words, amplification, repetition and magnification, is the source of all fallacies, see verbiage. The same judgment should apply to idle talk (vaniloquium), and to chatter (multiloquium).
6. Flaring Up into a Passion: Ad Passiones
Some of the remaining sins are difficult to relate to the problem of fallacies, perhaps because they are directly related to the sacred. Examples include the prohibition of obscene words (turpiloquium), blasphemy (blasphemia) and cursing (maledictum). Nevertheless, these sins have emotional significance, and certainly belong to the ad passiones group. Blasphemy is anger against God, and cursing, is anger against others. Obscene words can be used to support many passions, including insult.
In sum, the theory of sins of language is a critical theory of discourse that considers:
— The “non-technical” problems of lying or bearing witness to the truth.
— The spirit of the discussion.
— The relative interactional positions of the participants.
7. The “Rules of the Devil”
This list of fallacies-sins does not mention violations of logical rules, such as asserting the consequent (confusing necessary and sufficient conditions, see deduction). One might think that this is because the logical domain, by its very nature escapes the religious norm. However, the Muslim tradition, however, the vocabulary of sin can be applied to paralogisms, which Al-Ghazali regards as “rules of the devil” (Bal., p. 171; Deg.). A medieval exemplum also sends the logician to hell, equating him with the sophist, see exemplum.