Fallacies Blog Entry

Our Moral Footprint
By VACLAV HAVEL
Published: September 27, 2007
OVER the past few years the questions have been asked ever more forcefully whether global climate changes occur in natural cycles or not, to what degree we humans contribute to them, what threats stem from them and what can be done to prevent them. Scientific studies demonstrate that any changes in temperature and energy cycles on a planetary scale could mean danger for all people on all continents.
It is also obvious from published research that human activity is a cause of change; we just don’t know how big its contribution is. Is it necessary to know that to the last percentage point, though? By waiting for incontrovertible precision, aren’t we simply wasting time when we could be taking measures that are relatively painless compared to those we would have to adopt after further delays?
Maybe we should start considering our sojourn on earth as a loan. There can be no doubt that for the past hundred years at least, Europe and the United States have been running up a debt, and now other parts of the world are following their example. Nature is issuing warnings that we must not only stop the debt from growing but start to pay it back. There is little point in asking whether we have borrowed too much or what would happen if we postponed the repayments. Anyone with a mortgage or a bank loan can easily imagine the answer.
The effects of possible climate changes are hard to estimate. Our planet has never been in a state of balance from which it could deviate through human or other influence and then, in time, return to its original state. The climate is not like a pendulum that will return to its original position after a certain period. It has evolved turbulently over billions of years into a gigantic complex of networks, and of networks within networks, where everything is interlinked in diverse ways.
Its structures will never return to precisely the same state they were in 50 or 5,000 years ago. They will only change into a new state, which, so long as the change is slight, need not mean any threat to life.
Larger changes, however, could have unforeseeable effects within the global ecosystem. In that case, we would have to ask ourselves whether human life would be possible. Because so much uncertainty still reigns, a great deal of humility and circumspection is called for.
We can’t endlessly fool ourselves that nothing is wrong and that we can go on cheerfully pursuing our wasteful lifestyles, ignoring the climate threats and postponing a solution. Maybe there will be no major catastrophe in the coming years or decades. Who knows? But that doesn’t relieve us of responsibility toward future generations.
I don’t agree with those whose reaction is to warn against restricting civil freedoms. Were the forecasts of certain climatologists to come true, our freedoms would be tantamount to those of someone hanging from a 20th-story parapet.
Whenever I reflect on the problems of today’s world, whether they concern the economy, society, culture, security, ecology or civilization in general, I always end up confronting the moral question: what action is responsible or acceptable? The moral order, our conscience and human rights — these are the most important issues at the beginning of the third millennium.
We must return again and again to the roots of human existence and consider our prospects in centuries to come. We must analyze everything open-mindedly, soberly, unideologically and unobsessively, and project our knowledge into practical policies. Maybe it is no longer a matter of simply promoting energy-saving technologies, but chiefly of introducing ecologically clean technologies, of diversifying resources and of not relying on just one invention as a panacea.
I’m skeptical that a problem as complex as climate change can be solved by any single branch of science. Technological measures and regulations are important, but equally important is support for education, ecological training and ethics — a consciousness of the commonality of all living beings and an emphasis on shared responsibility.
Either we will achieve an awareness of our place in the living and life-giving organism of our planet, or we will face the threat that our evolutionary journey may be set back thousands or even millions of years. That is why we must see this issue as a challenge to behave responsibly and not as a harbinger of the end of the world.
The end of the world has been anticipated many times and has never come, of course. And it won’t come this time either. We need not fear for our planet. It was here before us and most likely will be here after us. But that doesn’t mean that the human race is not at serious risk. As a result of our endeavors and our irresponsibility our climate might leave no place for us. If we drag our feet, the scope for decision-making — and hence for our individual freedom — could be considerably reduced.

Appeal to Force: This article doesn’t contain any Appeal to Force relevance fallacies. This is because these fallacies use force, threat, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion. The author uses the complete opposite of this; he calmly exposes his reasons and writes in a very persuasive and convincing way.

Genetic Fallacy: Considering genetic fallacies are types of fallacies that claim an idea, product, or person must be untrustworthy because of its racial geographic or ethnic origin this article does not relate at all with this type of fallacies either. For the contrary the author expresses that we are all equal and that our resources are limited for everyone no matter the race, ethnic origin etc. He said that when they are all over they will be over for all of us. And that we all waste them for equal and are not contious.

Personal Attack: A personal attack is generally when the author is praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. This doesn’t happen in text, considering that the author is very general about the topic, he not only addresses one person but the whole world. He is not pointing any person or group of persons but instead is making the world realize the damage it is doing to itself.

Abusive: Abusive fallacies argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists. This goes completely out of the theme because in this article the author doesn’t involve any religious group. I think it is very good because it makes it not-biased, or inclined towards one position or religious view.

Circumstantial: Once again this text doesn’t contain Circumstantial Fallacies, which are fallacies that include person’s circumstances in their lives. The author expresses his point of view that is very clear. But he doesn’t involve any personal circumstances or events.

Argumentum ad Populum: This kind of Fallacies is very common, they give when feelings and enthusiasm arouse from the multitude instead of building a solid and strong argument. I don’t think this occurs here, because he does state the point of view of other people like scientists etc. But he does build a solid argument to I think the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy would half-apply to this text.

Bandwagon Approach: This is when the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action, the argument must be true, or the course of action must be followed, or the decision must be the best choice. I think that this kind of fallacy could certainly be applied to this article because the author says that we have to make the world better and it is our one and only choice, and that this is the action we all must take. Also most people believe this, so it applies perfectly to the kind of text.

Patriotic Approach: This argument is about when certain stance is true because it is somehow patriotic, and those who disagree are unpatriotic. Personally this doesn’t apply to the text, considering in no part of the text the author mentions one single country. He is not specific he just talks about the world in general.
Snob, Approach: It is a type of fallacy his name explains it all. It says that all the best people are doing it. Once more the author doesn’t mention any names or social classes therefore it does not apply.

Covering Oneself in a Cross: This is when a certain political or denominational stance is true or correct because it somehow is Christian. I don’t think this occurs in this text simply because as I said before the author doesn’t involve religion in this case.

Appeal to Tradition: It asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it. In part this is true because the author explains that for many years now people have been trying to be more careful and “reserved” with the world issues. He says that many studies have been done therefore this is what people must do because “The human race is at a serious risk”.

Appeal to Improper Authority: This type of fallacy attempts to capitalize upon feelings of respect or familiarity with a famous individual. It also often mentions movies and famous people. This doesn’t happen, because the author is just focusing in making the world realize the damage it is doing to itself, and he doesn’t he off topic.
Appeal to Biased Authority: When the authority is knowledgeable about the subject. This doesn’t happen again because he doesn’t involve any specific person, either the authorities.

Appeal to Emotion: When the argument is from pity and emotional appeal, often feelings are involved. This certainly happens in the text, because he is using feelings to make us realize the world issue we are having right now.