Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Does the following argument involve a fallacy?
If my kidnappers were planning on killing me, it wouldn’t matter if I knew where they were driving me to. And they did not blindfold me. So they don’t care if I see where we are going. Clearly, then, they intend to kill me.
(a) affirming the consequent (b) ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) (c) the black and white fallacy (d) no fallacy
Given the premises, it is an example of affirming the consequent. If we put the argument into statement form, and by a little natural deduction, then it is easy to see!
For,
A=They plan to kill me, B=They care that I see where we are going, C=They blindfold me
From your argument, we have:
I do not think there is a fallacy here.
If both premises are true, then the conclusion is also necessarily true.
It can be perhaps argued that 1. is not true; there could be other reasons why kidnappers would not blindfold their victims. Sheer incompetence, or having some kind of power over the victim that will prevent the latter from seeking the police after the fact, come to mind. If so, not the full reasoning, but the major premise may be characterised as a black-and-white, or excluded middle, fallacy.
But if 1. is true (ie, the victim knows that the kidnappers are not incompetent, and cannot think of any reason why s/he won't immediately seek the police to get justice done), I can see no fallacy there.
So, barring any doubts of the kidnappers incompetence or the possibility of an ongoing blackmail after ransom and release, option (d), no fallacy.
(And, in practical life, if you are kidnapped and not blindfolded, yes, fear for your life, and attempt to escape whenever possible. Do not let concerns about the competence of your kidnappers or the possibility of blackmail stop you from trying.)
Assume the kidnappers are in possession of a drug that erases your memory of all events of the last week completely. And look at the statements made in the light of this assumption. But the question looks too much like homework to me to go further into it.
(Many alternatives: Maybe they are just very inexperienced kidnappers? Maybe they take you to a neighbourhood with thousand houses, all looking exactly alike? )
That said, you should be worried. Just because an argument is fallacious doesn't mean the conclusion must be wrong. It's actually a fallacy to assume that a fallacious argument implies the conclusion is wrong. The fallacy here was confusing A->B and B->A (with A and B being "they will kill me", and "they don't blindfold me"). A->B and B->A are different whenever one is true but the other isn't. The two situations are (1) they blindfold me, but still are going to kill me. (2) they don't blindfold me, and they are not going to kill me. The more rare that second case is, the more you should be worried.
