Bo Bennett's criteria distinguishing a logical fallacy from a pseudo-logical fallacy has three parts. The third part is:
- It must be deceptive in that it often fools the average adult.
Douglas Walton, after studying arguments from ignorance, claims that a fallacy in general is a tactic of deception: (page 270-1)
...a fallacy is a sequence of argumentation used in a context of dialogue (of which there may be many types) as a tactic of deception to trick a speech partner in an exchange, or as an underlying systematic, and serious type of error reasoning. Note that a fallacy, according to this conception, is not just any error, weak argument, or violation of a rule of dialogue, but a particularly serious and systematic type of error or sophistical tactic of an identifiable kind, used in argumentation to obstruct a goal of dialogue, or interfere with its realization.
This association of fallacy with deception, rather than rationality, puts it more clearly under ethics than logic.
I am looking for sources, not arguments except as they describe what is in the sources. I want to explore the association of fallacy with deception both for and against. Examples like Bennett and Walton would be on the "for" side.
Bennett, B. "Pseudo-Logical Fallacies" Logically Fallacious https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/6/Pseudo-Logical-Fallacies
Walton, D. (2010). Arguments from ignorance. Penn State Press.