Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
If people have too much external justification for their actions, cognitive dissonance does not occur, and thus, attitude change is unlikely to occur. On the other hand, when people cannot find external justification for their behavior, they must attempt to find internal justification—they reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes or behaviors.
Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt or shame ).
Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion. As a consequence, the argument becomes a matter of faith and fails to persuade those who don't already accept it.
[18] [24] But the terms "argument" and "inference" are often used interchangeably in logic. The purpose of arguments is to convince a person that something is the case by providing reasons for this belief. [25] [26] Many arguments in natural language do not explicitly state all the premises.
Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true. In modern usage, it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it. This makes it an example of circular reasoning. [1] [2]
Jean Piaget developed two phases of moral development, one common among children and the other common among adults. The first is known as the Heteronomous Phase. [7] This phase, more common among children, is characterized by the idea that rules come from authority figures in one's life such as parents, teachers, and God. [7]
One method of disengagement is portraying inhumane behavior as though it has a moral purpose in order to make it socially acceptable.Moral justification is the first of a series of mechanisms suggested by Bandura that can induce people to bypass self-sanction and violate personal standards. [7]
Author, show-host and doctor Robert 'Bo' Bennett described the term as a substitute for "a person's actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument" in his 2017 book Logically Fallacious, along with a proposed logical form of the cliché; "Person 1 makes claim Y. Claim Y ...