The "Decision by Label" Fallacy: An Increasingly Damaging Logical Error in American Society

Determining what is true is harder today than it has ever been. There are so many voices claiming they know the truth, it seems impossible to know who is right and who is wrong.

In the midst of this confusion, an error has developed that causes people to reject an argument without ever considering it. I call it the “decision by label fallacy,” and it has infiltrated both the culture at large and the Christian community in particular.

To help you understand it—and avoid making it—this article will provide an overview of the fallacy and several examples of when it occurs.

The Decision by Label Fallacy Explained

The decision by label fallacy (arbitrium per pittacium in Latin) occurs when someone rejects an argument based on the category into which that argument falls, the “label” associated with it, in other words.

In this error, the person associates an argument with a known way of thinking or group of people and dismisses it based on that association alone, without even considering the points it is making.

---

Want the latest e-mail updates from Dr. Moore? Sign up here.

---

For example, let’s say someone comes up to me and says, “Big Pharma is controlling all the medical universities and hospitals. That’s why doctors avoid natural remedies and try to solve everything with drugs.” I commit the decision by label fallacy if I say, “Oh, you’re one of those conspiracy theory nuts. I don’t believe anything you guys say.”

When I do this, I reject the argument based on the label I assign to it rather than the specifics of the argument itself.

If I really want to know if this person is right or wrong, I should ask him to explain his reasoning in greater detail. This would allow me to judge the specific propositions he is making and determine, based on those propositions alone, if he is right or wrong.

Our goal as truth seekers should be to look past our preconceived notions to understand, evaluate, and judge every argument on its merits only. The fact is anyone can make a good point; truth does not just come from people or ways of thinking that fit into certain categories.

Examples in political, social, and spiritual contexts

This fallacy occurs frequently in every part of our society. Let me give you some examples.

Political examples

Today, people reject political arguments based on the party from which that argument comes or the party with which that argument is generally associated. For example, someone might argue that the U.S. should find a way to allow illegal aliens who are working, paying taxes, and obeying the law to eventually become citizens.

Americans debate issues like illegal immigration without ever hearing the arguments of the other party.

This position is typically associated with the Democrat Party, so anyone who is more conservative or aligns with the Republican Party will immediately dismiss it.

But is there no merit in this argument whatsoever? Shouldn’t someone truly seeking the wisest, most righteous decision at least take the time to understand and evaluate an argument made from someone on the “other side of the aisle”?

It has gotten so bad that the person who approved of an idea when it was proposed by one party’s candidate will reject it later when it is approved by the other party’s candidate, and vice versa.

Political discourse in America has turned into illogical bickering where each party rejects ideas it once promoted simply because the other side now accepts them.

In the last 10 years, we have seen this happen with homosexual marriage, the border wall, tariffs, and fraud reduction efforts, among others.

Social examples

This fallacy shows up in the social sphere, as well. Someone may argue that fossil fuels are an important factor in raising the standard of living in Third World countries, and that they can be used in a way that does not adversely affect the environment. But, because this is labeled as a view of “climate deniers,” many people will not even consider it.

On the other hand, someone may argue that people with both male and female reproductive organs (known as hermaphrodites or intersex individuals) should be able to designate which sex they want to be known as in society. But because this is generally associated with “transgenders” or the LGBTQ+ movement, a large group of people will reject it out of hand.

So, someone who does not believe in man-made climate change can never make a good argument? Are all LGBTQ+ ideas completely wrong in every way?

By rejecting all forms of fossil fuel energy production, activists lock Third World countries into poverty and starvation. Ironically, these positions are taken in the name of making the planet more hospitable to human life.

Spiritual examples

Believers commit this fallacy when considering the arguments of other believers. One believer might say to another, “I think the 1000-year reign mentioned in Revelation 20 is symbolic, not literal.” Instead of asking for the reasons behind this belief and evaluating those, the other believer says, “Oh, you’re just an amillennialist.”

Or a believer might say, “I don’t see the New Testament teaching that Israel will get its land back.” The other believers responds, “Oh, you’re one of those covenant theology guys, aren’t you?”

In each case, the person determines the truthfulness of the other party’s claim based on the label they associate with it. What you end up with here is believers who know labels but do not know the Bible, and whose convictions—whether they realize it or not—are actually based on what they’ve heard, not what Scripture actually teaches.

As Christians, we would be wise, therefore, to set aside our labels and categories, no matter how convinced we are of their truthfulness, and go back to the Bible to evaluate everything we believe.

Conclusion

It is common for people to reject good arguments today because they associate those arguments with certain labels. This prevents them from hearing ideas that may help them and society. By fighting the urge to judge ideas by labels, and hearing the argument itself, we can avail ourselves of greater access to the truth others may share with us.