2

I overheard a conversation that went something like this:

A: You could buy that for me.

B: I can't afford that.

A: Are you going to let money get in the way of friendship?

Specifically, I like the way that A managed to make B responsible for maintaining this friendship by spending money.

I'm pretty sure this was said in jest, but I couldn't forget it.

Is this a fallacy, if so which? The closest I could come up with is Fallacy: shifting the point of the conversation that answer doesn't satisfy me because this looks like an attempted guilt trip.

  • 'Should implies can', so of course your obligation to me implies you have money! (Whereas really, your lack of money implies the lack of obligation.) Governments do it all the time. – jobermark Oct 10 '14 at 19:20
  • 1
    I can't see a logical conclusion that was drawn based on the application of illegal rules. If we translate the question into a statement, "as a friend, you should buy this for me even though you cannot afford it", it just looks like an unfounded claim. – gnasher729 Oct 11 '14 at 22:02
  • 1
    I agree with gnasher - it's not a conclusion, more a tricksy bit of banter (which I also like) ending in a question. The implication is that in order to have a friendship, A has to buy B stuff, revealing an agenda that B wants said stuff enough to prioritise it above their friendship (in jest, as you say). The only false statement I see is "You could buy that" - not true IF B can't afford it. – user2808054 Nov 19 '14 at 9:48
1

Check out Appeal to emotion. This seems to best describe the conversation, where the use of word friendship is to focus on emotion than facts.

  • I'm not convinced I'm qualified to judge the truthiness of a philosophical answer, but this answer feels true to me, in the Stephen Colbert sense. – John Schmitt Mar 9 '15 at 17:43
2

Let me try to interpret the statements as propositions.

Premise 1: Person B is capable of buying "that" for person A.

Premise 2: Person B cannot afford to buy "that" for person A.

Conclusion: Person B has a responsibility to buy "that" for person A.

I propose that an inability afford something for someone implies an a lack of capability to buy something for someone. Therefore, premise 2 implies:

Premise 2A: It is not the case that person B is capable of buying "that" for person A.

Premise 1 and premise 2A assert contrary positions. (i.e. they are of the form p^~p). From two contradictory propositions, any proposition can be proven (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion). This works as follows:

Premise 1 is true, and Premise 1 is false.

Premise 1 is true.

Premise one is false.

Premise 1 is true, or the conclusion is true.

The conclusion is true. (by disjunctive syllogism, because premise 1 is false)

There is no fallacy in the argument per se, but at least one of the premises must be false, so the conclusion cannot be inferred. That is the argument is valid but not sound.

Perhaps this exchange seems funny because of the mental incongruity caused by the contradiction between A's and B's first statements.

  • First off welcome to philosophy.se. This is a good answer that unpacks what's going on in the OP's question. I might recommend rewording "Premise 1 is true, and Premise 1 is false." as that sounds crazy. But I get the reason you're saying that. – virmaior Nov 19 '14 at 13:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.