The Fallacy of Political Reductionism, which is probably the single most common error in political thinking, arises when the Ethical Consistency Principle is turned backward—that is, when it is confused with its converse or inverse. The first form of the fallacy assumes the inverse of the Ethical Consistency Principle:
Ethical Consistency Principle:
If X is moral (or desirable), then X should be legal.
Fallacy Form 1 (Inverse):
If X is immoral (or undesirable), then X should be illegal.

Suppose that Crusoe chooses to act against his self-interest by choosing the less nutritious fruit instead. From a rational egoist's viewpoint, we might regard this choice as immoral behavior on Crusoe's part, while still recognizing that it would be counter-productive for Friday and the other islanders to interfere by means of force. Not only would such interference constitute an initiation of force that would be against the interests of Friday and the others, but in addition the compulsory dietary policy might well backfire and have worse effects on Crusoe than the evil it seeks to remedy. Thus the implication in Fallacy Form 1 is not in general true, and a valid argument for making X illegal must be based on some other grounds. This fallacy is commonly used by those who seek legal prohibitions against various forms of behavior because they are regarded as immoral or undesirable—but without offering any further justification for a legal ban.      Next page
Previous pagePrevious Open Review window