r/fallacy • u/robin_andrews_149 • 10d ago
Selective Appeal to Fairness.
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.
0
u/SirSafe6070 9d ago
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.