0

From TV Tropes' entry defining the Tautological Templar...

Considering all the puppy-kicking and Moral Event Horizons the Knight Templar gets into, sooner or later a(nother) good character is going to get the courage to ask them something. How on earth do they believe themselves to be "absolutely good", given just how spiteful and needlessly cruel they are?

The Knight Templar's answer is simple. They are good, and their every action is good because they are good.

Or, to break down the argument.

  1. I am good.
  2. Any action that a good person does must also be good.

Conclusion. Any action I do must be good.

Obviously this argument seems wrong. But I have a hard time knowing if the argument is wrong because the premises are wrong, or if the argument is wrong because it is using a logical fallacy (such as a "circular reasoning").

  • 1
    In 2. There seems to be a hint of the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division. "My life's contribution to the world was positive, so every contribution I made in my life has to have been positive for the world" is a logical misstep. I am not sure whether you consider 2 a premise or a deduction. But it has this weakness. – user9166 Oct 30 '16 at 5:21
  • I would consider 2 to be a premise, @jobermark, and think your comment is correct. Would you mind turning it into an answer? – Left SE On 10_6_19 Nov 6 '16 at 3:36
1

In 2. There seems to be a fallacy of division.

"My life's contribution to the world was positive, so every contribution I made in my life has to have been positive for the world" is a traditional logical misstep.

| improve this answer | |

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.