Part 1- Foundations of, Chapter 4: Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Governance, and Critical Thinking, Doc 6

This section covers logical fallacies, particularly those commonly encountered in business settings, that can undermine critical thinking and ethical decision-making. Recognizing these fallacies helps improve the quality of decision-making by reducing biases and misinterpretations. Key Fallacies in Critical Thinking 1. Non Sequitur (Irrelevant Conclusion): o A non sequitur occurs when a conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the premises. For example, an employee might justify stealing office supplies by saying, “I’m not paid enough.” Similarly, letting go of high-salary employees instead of low-performing ones during budget cuts is a non sequitur if company policy prioritizes performance. 2. Appeals to Pity: o This fallacy uses sympathy rather than logic to persuade, often diverting from relevant issues. For instance, attributing financial responsibility to a company for local illnesses near a plant without causal evidence is an appeal to pity, relying on emotional impact rather than factual support. 3. False Analogies: o Analogies that inaccurately compare situations can lead to flawed reasoning. For example, comparing a bank’s loans to low-income borrowers to a risky lender’s practices, like those of Countrywide Financial, may be misleading if the bank’s vetting processes differ significantly. 4. Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning): o This fallacy assumes the truth of what it aims to prove. An employee claiming “I’m honest, so you can trust these numbers” begs the question, as honesty isn’t proven by mere assertion but by verifiable evidence. 5. Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to Popularity): o This appeals to the popularity of a belief or behavior as validation. For example, advertisements that imply drinking a specific brand of beer leads to social enjoyment employ this fallacy by suggesting that since everyone enjoys it, you will too. 6. Bandwagon Fallacy: o Similar to ad populum, the bandwagon fallacy argues that something is acceptable or correct because others are doing it. For instance, justifying risky financial behavior by saying, “All competitors are doing it” exemplifies this fallacy, which fails to consider whether the practice is wise or ethical. 7. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force): This fallacy uses threats instead of reason to compel agreement. In business, managers may imply that dissent will impact career prospects, which can stifle honest input. 8. Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack): o Rather than addressing the argument’s content, this fallacy attacks the individual’s character. For example, dismissing a CEO’s pay plan proposal by accusing them of greed doesn’t address the merits of the plan itself. 9. Argument from Authority: o This fallacy relies on the authority or reputation of an individual rather than the strength of their argument. For instance, claiming a CEO’s decision must be right simply because of their position overlooks the need for sound reasoning. 10. False Cause (Post Hoc): o • Assuming a causal relationship based on temporal succession is a common error. For instance, if a business observes increased sales following a change in store hours, it may mistakenly attribute the rise solely to the schedule change without analyzing other potential factors. 11. The Gambler’s Fallacy: • This fallacy involves expecting future outcomes to be influenced by past independent events. In business, over-relying on a streak of successful decisions without accounting for variability and potential luck can lead to flawed confidence. 12. Reductio ad Absurdum (Slippery Slope): • This exaggerates a scenario to an extreme end to argue against an action. For instance, arguing that granting a single exception to a policy will lead to chaos is reductive and ignores the potential for measured, case-by-case decision-making. 13. Appeals to Tradition: • Assuming that a practice should continue because it has historically been done that way can stifle innovation. Tradition alone does not justify maintaining a process if circumstances change. Application of Critical Thinking to Ethical Decision-Making The discussion encourages managers to reflect on whether decisions are driven by sound reasoning or by one of these fallacies. Recognizing and avoiding these logical missteps can lead to more ethical, responsible, and ultimately beneficial decision-making. The framework also emphasizes the importance of considering both rationality and ethics in business contexts to avoid biased or overly simplistic reasoning.