   Name these fallacies
  I've long been interested in dealing with flawed thinking; I'm familiar with some of the common logical fallacies, such as ad homium, ad populum and association fallacy.However, there are a few logical assertions which I know are flawed, but I dont have a name for them.The first is the assertion that the secondary effects of an action performed or intended by a person are the intended consequence. For example, I read about a protest against some roads being built, and one of the protesters claimed that the construction company wanted to kill animals; obviously animals die on roads. What is the name of this fallacy?The other which I've not been able to pin down is the fallacy that, because an event which occurs benefits a third party, that third party somehow conspired to cause it to happen. Obviously, without any other indication of motive the third party may or may not be responsible.What are these fallacies called, in formal debate?   
  These links might help. List of FallaciesFallaciesThe first example may be a case of Appeal to Consequences. The second example may be a case of Appeal to Motive. ;Quote:Original post by LessBreadThese links might help. List of FallaciesFallaciesThe first example may be a case of Appeal to Consequences. The second example may be a case of Appeal to Motive.Sadly, neither of those links quite fit.An appeal to consequences is where you ignore whether a claim is true or false; you simply state that if a claim is true then there will be consequences; therefore we must find the claim false.The fallacy I am attempting to name is "action X has effect E. Therefore, effect E is the intended outcome for action X."An appeal to motive is simply where we call into question the objectivity of a persons claims based on the fact that they benefit from the viewpoint they are arguing. "Party P benefits from decision D. Therefore, P is biased towards D."What im looking for is close; "Event E benefits party P; thereofore, party P caused E to occur."   ;Quote:Original post by speciesUnknownThe first is the assertion that the secondary effects of an action performed or intended by a person are the intended consequence. For example, I read about a protest against some roads being built, and one of the protesters claimed that the construction company wanted to kill animals; obviously animals die on roads. What is the name of this fallacy?The other which I've not been able to pin down is the fallacy that, because an event which occurs benefits a third party, that third party somehow conspired to cause it to happen. Obviously, without any other indication of motive the third party may or may not be responsible.What are these fallacies called, in formal debate?I'm not 100% sure I'd call either of them fallacies. Each of your 'fallacies' would have a different logical fallacy (possibly not even have one) in different arguments.   ;Quote:Original post by speciesUnknownthe fallacy that, because an event which occurs benefits a third party, that third party somehow conspired to cause it to happen.That's widely known as the 9/11 conspiracy fallacy ;)   ;  Those are good ones. I'm not sure those are named fallacies, but they are clearly fallacious. Stumped!   ;  @The fallacy I am attempting to name is "action X has effect E. Therefore, effect E is the intended outcome for action X."I simplified that to this search. assuming intention from effect fallacyAnd found this. Midterm 2 Study Guide, Psych 330Quote:Chapter 17: The Consequence-Intentionality Fallacy: The effect doesn't prove the intentPeople often assume that the consequences of a behavior reflects intent. But consequences do not prove intent. Do not confuse consequences with intentionality.Consequence-Intentionality Fallacy: The erroneous belief that the effect of a person's behavior proves the intent of the behavior. @What im looking for is close; "Event E benefits party P; thereofore, party P caused E to occur."Quote:Chapter 16: The Intervention-Causation Fallacy: The cure doesn't prove the causeIntervention-Causation Fallacy: The erroneous belief that one's ability to change an event proves what originally caused the event.Treatment-Etiology Fallacy: The erroneous belief that a favorable response to medical treatment proves that a medical disease existed.Emotional and mental disorders do have biological correlates, but this does not prove that these phenomena are caused by biological diseases. To the extent that a cure can be considered a benefit, that appears to fit. ;  Here's another quick reference: definitions of fallacies. Here's another: Explanations of Basic FallaciesHere's another: Fallacy Files by AlphabetAnd for measure: The Doctrine of Double Effect;Quote:Original post by speciesUnknownI've long been interested in dealing with flawed thinking; I'm familiar with some of the common logical fallacies, such as ad homium, ad populum and association fallacy.However, there are a few logical assertions which I know are flawed, but I dont have a name for them.There are probably simpler ways of dealing with cases such as the ones you listed, but both seem to be "affirming the consequent."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequentQuote:Original post by speciesUnknownThe first is the assertion that the secondary effects of an action performed or intended by a person are the intended consequence. For example, I read about a protest against some roads being built, and one of the protesters claimed that the construction company wanted to kill animals; obviously animals die on roads. What is the name of this fallacy?It could be most easily be treated as a strawman argument (with the protestor assigning a false position to the Construction Company).Technically, though, it appears to possess the following form:If RoadLover wants more roadkill, then he would favor more roads.RoadLover announces that he favors more roads.Therefore, RoadLover wants more roadkill.Quote:Original post by speciesUnknownThe other which I've not been able to pin down is the fallacy that, because an event which occurs benefits a third party, that third party somehow conspired to cause it to happen. Obviously, without any other indication of motive the third party may or may not be responsible.What are these fallacies called, in formal debate?It might be easier to expose this as a false dilemma wherein it is being implied that either A) Event X does not occur, or B) the ThirdParty must have caused Event X to occur.  Technically, it does seem to fall into this form, though:If ThirdParty had their way, then they would cause Event X to occur.Event X occurred.Therefore, ThirdParty had their way.   