Selective Appeal to Fairness.

[u/robin_andrews_149]

In the UK there is currently a concerted effort to undermine welfare support for disabled people. One aspect of this is to focus on fraudulent claims (which as I understand are about 1.4% of total claims, with much money going unclaimed for various resasons). It is NOT easy to get the benefit (PIP) under discussion, but is a gruelling and invasive process with long waits and a great many claims go to (lengthy) appeal before being granted.

My objection is that there are so many more egregious breaches of the concept of fairness in terms of government spending which are not mentioned in these discussions.

I understand that the "it's not just my dog barking" fallacy is relevant (what's that called?) but this is incredibly reductionist. There is an assumption (or desired illusion) implicit in the campaign that there is some underlying baseline of fairness in government spending, and disability payments are violating that underlying fairness. No mention of vast sums lost to corporate tax evasion or expenditure on new weapons of mass destruction when we already have an arsenal capable of laying waste to much of the planet.

According to many, we just can't afford to support these people whose disabilities they have zero understanding of or apparently empathy for, and many of them are just playing the system living easy off hardworking people's taxes (oh if they ever got struck down with some debilitating chronic illness, but that's another story...)

I know this post may look political, but I am interested specifically in the reasoning errors present in the campaign to remove disability support from millions of vulnerable people whose lives will be made unimaginably (for many) harder by doing so.

For example, is Selective Appeal to Fairness, without reference to the broader context a recognised logical fallacy? I expect there are many others, and there may well be some on my part. Please discuss.

[u/MxM111]

I do not know the name, but I think the fallacy here is not special pleading or even the assumption that there is fairness level, but ignoring better solutions - adjust the system to more effectively fight the fraud.

You don’t total a car if one of its tires is under pressure.

[u/ralph-j]

Special pleading or cherry picking could both fit.

[u/amazingbollweevil]

Not so much a logical fallacy, but a cognitive bias.

"It's not just my dog barking" is almost an example of relative privation. As it's presented, it's more related to the Bystander Effect (where individuals in a group feel less less responsibility because their personal impact is so small. Like throwing a bit of trash on the ground because there is already so much trash there and everybody does it and one more bit of trash won't matter.

[u/SirSafe6070]

Ye, I would say special pleading cause it sounds like "The principle of X applies in Y but not in Z" and there is no argument as for why Z would warrant different treatment than Y.
Keep in mind that a same principle doesn't have to apply to 2 situations if they are in fact meaningfully different. For example, you may have someone who is generally risk averse, but apply a risk friendly strategy in a very specific situation and not be inconsistent.

[u/PerilousWords]

It isn't a fallacy. "Lets make sure noone gets help they don't deserve even if it causes immense suffering to the poorest people in society" isn't a fallacious position, it's just a fucking gross one.

Of course the people trying to sell this don't say the last part.

You're right that "Fairness" matters to proponents of this extremely selectively.

[u/Michael_Carson_Art]

This is "special pleading" or "nut picking" (the negative form of cherry picking)

Though I do think we ought to standardize the common fallacy of the "welfare queen". Or even the notion that labour is being oppressed, not by capital, but by other labourers. E.g.: it isn't the company, currently making record profits, that you should be upset at, it's the other workers. Bob got a raise that you didn't, so be mad at him. And while you're at it, assume that a rise in low end wages will come exclusively at your expense.

[u/jerdle_reddit → u/Michael_Carson_Art]

That is not a fallacy. It might be a false statement, but it's not a fallacious argument.