Accident

The accident fallacy holds that the peculiar characteristics of an exceptional case are sufficient to justify rejecting a general rule.

The features in a question may be "accidental," meaning they have no bearing on the issue at a hand, and they can easily be recognized as an unusual and permissible exception.

The notion that it is only about repaying what is owed should be rejected. What if a man lends you weapons and then becomes irrational? It cannot be right to give weapons to a crazy person, can it?

(Pluto used this fallacy because he did not know that the in saneness is an accident," which means it is a freak thing that has nothing to do with the main topic and is easily admitted to be a special case.)

Almost every generalization could be challenged on the grounds that it did not cover "accidental" cases. Because they did not take into account the possibility of a meteorite striking the offender prior to the ensuing consequences, the majority of general statements regarding the consequences of specific actions could be overturned. The fallacy of accident would be committed by maintaining this.

Treating a general statement as if it were an unqualified universal that accepted no exceptions is a fallacy. It would be giving it a significance and rigor that it was never meant to have. The majority of our generalizations are subject to the implicit condition that they are applicable in all other circumstances. The exceptions can be granted without invalidating the general claim if other factors are not equal, such as a meteorite or the presence of in saneness.

You claim not to have met this spy. Can you be certain, for instance, that he was never near you in a football crowd?

"Okay, no."

1 (If I ever did meet him, it was by chance.)

Those who seek reciprocity fall victim to the fallacy of accident. If you want to create clear definitions of terms like "truth," "justice," and "meaning," you shouldn't be surprised if other people try as hard as you do to let the occasional accident through your seals.

Plato was on the lookout for justice. When John Stuart Mill tried to justify liberty except where there is harm to others or a serious risk of harm, he kept getting the question, "But what about the case where...?" It poses a risk to the workplace. Avoid universal if you want to avoid accidents.

Not all promises should be kept. Imagine that you and an Austrian count who ran a global spy network were stranded on a desert island together. And if you promised him that there would only be enough food for one person, what if... (The only amazing thing about these horrifying tales is that no one should expect such freak cases to make the general rule any less acceptable.)

A schoolboy joke is one famous example of the fallacy:

You consume today what you purchased yesterday. You consume raw meat today because you purchased it yesterday.

(With the generalization referring to the substance in whatever "accidental" condition it may be in.)

Anarchists like the fallacy of accident because it seems to overturn general rules. Find the most bizarre scenario you can think of when you are accused of breaking the rules. Why should the rule apply to your situation if it does not apply to this one? If this were the only means of releasing the widows and orphans trapped in the cellar, we can all agree that it would be right to burn down a tax office. Therefore, my actions were not necessarily wrong...