🧪 This platform is in early beta. Features may change and you might encounter bugs. We appreciate your patience!
special_pleading
Special pleading occurs when someone applies a rule, principle, or standard to others but exempts themselves or their preferred case without adequate justification. The arguer claims their situation is an exception to the general rule but fails to provide a relevant difference that would warrant the exemption. It is an ad hoc defense that undermines the consistency of reasoning.
"Everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. But my business is different -- we provide jobs, so we should get a tax break that other businesses don't."
A parent insists the school enforce a strict no-phone policy for all students, then sends a note asking that her own child be allowed to keep a phone on during school hours because 'our family situation is unique.'
A sports commentator argues that a rival team's star player should be suspended for an on-field altercation, but when his own team's player does something nearly identical, he says: 'You have to understand the context — he was provoked, and he's a team leader. It's completely different.'
Binary (yes/no) questions an LLM must answer to identify this aspect:
Is a general rule or principle being applied selectively?
Type: binaryIs an exception being claimed for a particular case?
Type: binaryIs there adequate independent justification for the exception?
Type: binarySpecial pleading occurs when someone applies a rule, principle, or standard to others but exempts themselves or their preferred case without adequate justification. The arguer claims their situation is an exception to the general rule but fails to provide a relevant difference that would warrant the exemption. It is an ad hoc defense that undermines the consistency of reasoning.
People are naturally biased toward their own interests and circumstances, making self-serving exceptions feel justified. The claimed uniqueness of one's situation is rarely scrutinized.
Ask what specifically makes this case different enough to warrant an exception. Apply the proposed exception universally and see if it still seems reasonable.
Pervasive in tax policy debates, regulatory exemptions, institutional rule-bending, and personal ethics where people hold others to standards they exempt themselves from.
The accident fallacy (a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid) occurs when a general rule is applied to a specific case whose circumstances make the rule inapplicable. The fallacy treats the general rule as absolute and exceptionless, ignoring the particular features of the case at hand that constitute a legitimate exception. It is the opposite of the converse accident (hasty generalisation), which moves from specific cases to general rules.
The overwhelming exception fallacy occurs when a generalisation is presented as meaningful or informative despite having so many exceptions that it is effectively vacuous. The rule may be technically true only in a narrow set of circumstances, yet it is invoked as though it captures a genuine regularity. This differs from the accident fallacy in that the problem is not misapplication to one case but the rule's fundamental inadequacy as a generalisation.
Use these tools to detect, analyze, or train this aspect.