Example
A Sant Baba says they can help you get a Visa if you pay obeisance to them. The Visa application fails, and you return to the Baba asking why. The Baba says “you did not have strong enough faith”.
Understanding the Special Pleading Fallacy (Moving the Goalposts)
The Special Pleading Fallacy occurs when someone applies rules or standards to others while exempting themselves—or their own situation—without providing a valid justification for the exemption. Moving the goalposts is a related concept where the criteria for success are changed after an attempt has already been made, making it difficult or impossible to meet the new standards.
- Characteristics:
- Unjustified Exceptions: Introducing new conditions or exceptions without logical reasons.
- Avoidance of Accountability: Shifting blame or changing criteria to avoid admitting error or failure.
- Subjective Conditions: Implementing vague or unfalsifiable requirements that cannot be objectively measured.
Applying It To The Example:
- Initial Claim:
- Baba’s Promise: The Sant Baba asserts that by paying obeisance to them, they can help you obtain a Visa.
- Implied Guarantee: The act of paying obeisance is presented as the necessary and sufficient condition for their assistance.
- Outcome:
- Visa Denied: Despite following the Baba’s instructions, the Visa application is unsuccessful.
- Shift in Criteria:
- Baba’s Response: “You did not have strong enough faith.”
- Introduction of New Condition: The Baba now adds “strong faith” as an essential requirement, which was not mentioned initially.
- Why This Is Special Pleading (Moving the Goalposts):
- Changing Standards Post-Factum: The Baba alters the success criteria after the failure occurs, making it impossible to hold the original claim accountable.
- Unfalsifiable Explanation: The notion of “strong enough faith” is subjective and cannot be objectively measured or tested.
- Deflecting Responsibility: By blaming the individual’s lack of faith, the Baba avoids taking responsibility for the unfulfilled promise.
Why It’s Fallacious Reasoning
- Inconsistent Application: The Baba does not consistently apply the original standard (paying obeisance) and instead introduces a new requirement after the fact.
- Lack of Transparency: The initial agreement did not mention the necessity of a certain level of faith, leading to a lack of informed consent.
- Manipulative Tactic: This approach can manipulate individuals into a cycle of blame and continued compliance, as any failure can be attributed to their supposed shortcomings.
Conclusion
The Sant Baba’s shifting of the criteria—from merely paying obeisance to requiring “strong enough faith”—exemplifies the Special Pleading Fallacy by moving the goalposts. This logical fallacy undermines rational discourse by introducing unjustified exceptions and making claims unfalsifiable. It prevents a fair assessment of the original promise and places undue blame on the individual, rather than addressing the potential flaws in the Baba’s claim.