Prejudices and discrimination against a group of people Y by members of another group X are often justified by assertions that members of Y are more likely than members of X to engage in a particular negatively-viewed behavior, or are more likely to contract and spread a particular disease, or are more likely to bear a particular deficiency in their intellect or ability. Whatever the characteristic is, let's call it C.

Expanding this argument:

  • Let the proportion of the members of a group G that bears characteristic C be labeled p(G). In other words, given an arbitrary member of group G, the probability that that member bears C is p(G).
  • p(Y) > p(X)
  • Therefore, it's reasonable for members of X to treat members of Y badly (shunning them socially, refusing them jobs, denying them equal access to social services, enslaving them, exiling them).

There's an implication here:

  • that there exists a threshold probability of bearing characteristic C, p(threshold), such that, for any group G, if p(G) < p(threshold) then that group is entitled to the best treatment while, if p(G) > p(threshold), then it's acceptable to mistreat members of G; and
  • p(Y) > p(threshold) > p(X).

The fallacy is that no one in these cases has actually worked out p(threshold). The bigot feels that, as long p(X) < p(Y), then one can just (This is a circular argument.) The bigot won't acknowledge the possibility that p(X) < p(Y) < p(threshold), which would justify inferior treatment of both groups, X and Y; nor the possibility that p(threshold) < p(X) < p(Y), which would demand that both groups be treated as first-class citizens. No, the bigot relies on the fallacious assumption that the acceptability threshold for C lies between its respective prevalence levels among the two groups.

My question is: Is there already a name for this fallacy? I know I used a lot of words to get to this point, but I was trying to figure out a faster way of explaining it to make it clear what I was talking about before I asked my question, and I didn't manage to do that. I've come up with names of my own, like "the fallacy of the self-justifying dividing line", but nothing catchy, and I figured I should find out whether a name already exists.

  • I see a flaw in the method: "Therefore, it's reasonable for members of X to treat members of Y badly". These actions themselves are raising p(X), so the method is self-defeating. – rus9384 Aug 19 '18 at 21:49
  • Unless C = "treats members of Y badly" or "treats members of other groups badly", this doesn't follow. C is a specific characteristic that is given as a basis for prejudice or discrimination. – Green Grasso Holm Oct 31 '18 at 20:36

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.