philosophy short essay
Reading the below conversation between Nick and Joey. Then, answer the following questions (2 paragraphs each):
- This conversation includes a red herring fallacy. Where does the fallacy occur, and why is it a red herring? Be sure to define the fallacy, and discuss how it is fallacious within the context.
- At the end of the conversation, Nick says, “I proved that you’re wrong, and if you’re wrong, I’m right.” Is this a true statement? Does proving that someone else is wrong about something mean that you are right about that same something? Explain your answer (this statement also includes a sneaky fallacy; identify/explain it for +1 EC to your overall score).
Joey: So, what happens when you’re wrong?
Nick: Well, Joey, I’m never wrong.
Joey: But you can’t always be right.
Nick: Well, if it’s your job to be right, then you’re never wrong.
Joey: But what if you are wrong?
Nick: Okay, let’s say that you’re defending chocolate and I’m defending vanilla. Now, if I were to say to you, “Vanilla’s the best flavor ice cream”, you’d say …?
Joey: “No, chocolate is.”
Nick: Exactly. But you can’t win that argument. So, I’ll ask you: So you think chocolate is the end-all and be-all of ice cream, do you?
Joey: It’s the best ice cream; I wouldn’t order any other.
Nick: Oh. So it’s all chocolate for you, is it?
Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
Nick: Well, I need more than chocolate. And for that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty.
Joey: But that’s not what we’re talking about.
Nick: Ah, but that’s what I’m talking about.
Joey: But … you didn’t prove that vanilla’s the best.
Nick: I didn’t have to. I proved that you’re wrong, and if you’re wrong, I’m right
