The Equivocation Fallacy

Hi,

This week’s email is about the equivocation fallacy: a logical fallacy that involves alternating between different meanings of a word or phrase, in a way that renders the argument that contains it unsound. An example of this fallacy appears in the statement “I have the right to say whatever I want, so it’s right for me to do so”, where the word “right” is first used to refer to something that someone is entitled to, and then to something that is morally good.

You can respond to the equivocation fallacy by pointing out the problematic shift in meaning (“just because you have the right to do something, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing for you to do”). To help with this, you might want to replace the problem term with a synonym or full definition, which will highlight how its meaning differs each time (“just because you’re legally entitled to do something doesn’t mean it’s the moral thing to do”).

As always, I’m happy to hear your thoughts.

Have a great week,
Itamar