Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Troubler of Israel

Home
About

Home
Evangelical
Against the Tyranny of Exceptions

Against the Tyranny of Exceptions

Last updated on: March 10, 2017 at 3:41 pm by G. Shane Morris

Against the Tyranny of Exceptions 2017-03-10T15:41:06-04:00 G. Shane Morris

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

vbegod9a5ti-levi-saunders These days, policing generalizations is the go-to move when you’ve got no other arguments. The distinction between the logical fallacy known as “hasty generalization,” and generalizations as such, has broken down. Now the mere observation, “that’s a generalization,” is expected to strike our ears as an effective counter-argument. But rational people make generalizations all the time. It’s part of life. There’s nothing wrong with them per se, and we don’t owe anyone an apology for making them. Here are some examples of perfectly valid generalizations:

Vaccines are a good idea.

Small children should not be left alone with pitbulls.

You will die if held underwater for five minutes.

If your wife catches you looking at pornography, she will not be pleased.

Skinny people make bad sumo wrestlers.

Michael Bay makes terrible movies.

Are there exceptions to these generalizations? Of course. “The Island” exists, and was a very serviceable movie, despite the now hopelessly anachronistic MSN product placements. That’s why they’re called “generalizations” and not “exhaustive statements of truth.” But when it comes to politics and culture, the rules apparently change, at least in my experience. And one side of the political aisle is a far worse offender.

Generally speaking (heh), the political left deals in particulars and exceptions. It’s how they get everything done, socially and politically. “X sweeping policy change should be adopted because of ABC exception to a general truth.” Everything is advanced through appeals to extreme cases:

Women belong in combat because a tiny percentage of women are physically on par with a tiny percentage of men.

Abortion is acceptable because of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

Transsexuality is healthy because a minute percentage of trans individuals are born with ambiguous genitalia.

Rare outliers are used as proxies for the vast majority of cases. But this is not an accurate picture of reality. The vast majority of women are physically weaker than the vast majority of men. The vast majority of abortions are elective. The vast majority of the transgendered are unambiguously biological men or women. These statements will draw howls of indignation and “you can’t say that’s” from certain quarters. But they’re no less true.

Ben Shapiro offers the appropriate response to this argument-by-exception tactic. And it’s an excellent reminder of why generalizations are often powerful tools to help us get to the truth. He asks whether a progressive student only wants abortion to be legal in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and whether the intersex are the only trans people with a valid claim to surgery and access to both bathrooms. We might also ask whether combat roles should only be open to exceptional Amazon women who can meet the physical requirements to which men are subject.

In cases like this, it generally (heh) turns out the progressive is not interested only in these rare cases, but is using them as wedge arguments to push the broader agenda. Thus, Shapiro exposes the element of dishonesty underlying arguments against generalizations. In politics, like the rest of life, we do not make policy based on rare exceptions. It’s an irrational way to live. You do not leave your child alone with pitbulls even though there are a few nice pitties out there. You do not hold someone underwater for five minutes even though there are free divers who can survive that, and you do not continue to see “Transformers” sequels even though “The Island” remains singularly awesome.

Yes, there are exceptions to generalizations. But as the saying goes, the exception proves the rule. And more often than not, those who are particularly fussy about generalizations are just using special cases to sneak in their own, unspoken generalizations. Don’t buy it.

Previous Post

March 6, 2017

Davenant House: Retrieving the Reformation in the South Carolina Foothills

Next Post

March 15, 2017 A Dying Wife’s Dating Profile - The Point

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Animals Apologetics Archaeology Atheism Bible Books Church Creationism Culture of Death Debate Devotion Economics Ethics Free Will Gender Issues History Holidays Intelligent Design Islam Liberalism Life Advice Media Movies Music Nature Parenting Philosophy Politics Prayer Race Relationships Science Sex Stories Technology Terrorism The Point Theology Uncategorized Youth

Select a Month July 2021 June 2021 April 2021 March 2021 November 2020 September 2020 May 2020 April 2020 February 2020 January 2020 November 2019 October 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who walked on water besides Jesus?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Peter Moses Paul Elijah