The logical error of assuming people act honestly, ethically, or transparently without evidence, ignoring that self-interest, incentives, and deception often influence behavior. Accepting statements or actions at face value without considering motives is the Assumption of Benevolence Fallacy.
Examples Illustrating the Assumption of Benevolence Fallacy:
1. Law Enforcement:
Police at a crime scene operate under the assumption of malice or self-interest, not automatic honesty. Ignoring human self-interest in these situations would be dangerous and illogical.
2. Sports / Entertainment:
In the Mike Tyson vs. Jake Paul fight, assuming the bout wasn’t rigged just because they denied it ignores possible financial or strategic incentives, making this a clear Assumption of Benevolence Fallacy.
3. Everyday Life / Buying Items:
Buying a “cheap” iPad or concert tickets on Craigslist without checking could leave you with a fake or broken product. Verifying items before purchase follows the assumption of malice, showing why assuming honesty is a fallacy.
Examples Illustrating the Assumption of Benevolence Fallacy:
1. Law Enforcement:
Police at a crime scene operate under the assumption of malice or self-interest, not automatic honesty. Ignoring human self-interest in these situations would be dangerous and illogical.
2. Sports / Entertainment:
In the Mike Tyson vs. Jake Paul fight, assuming the bout wasn’t rigged just because they denied it ignores possible financial or strategic incentives, making this a clear Assumption of Benevolence Fallacy.
3. Everyday Life / Buying Items:
Buying a “cheap” iPad or concert tickets on Craigslist without checking could leave you with a fake or broken product. Verifying items before purchase follows the assumption of malice, showing why assuming honesty is a fallacy.
1. “Thinking a stranger handing you a USB drive is safe to plug in? That’s the Assumption of Benevolence Fallacy—people can have hidden motives.”
2. “Believing every politician is telling the truth during a campaign speech is a classic Assumption of Benevolence Fallacy.”
3. “Assuming your roommate would never eat your leftovers without asking? That’s textbook Assumption of Benevolence Fallacy.”
2. “Believing every politician is telling the truth during a campaign speech is a classic Assumption of Benevolence Fallacy.”
3. “Assuming your roommate would never eat your leftovers without asking? That’s textbook Assumption of Benevolence Fallacy.”
by QuestingPalm August 24, 2025
Get the Assumption of Benevolence Fallacy mug.A hypothesis that predicts a pattern of hypocrisy from prominent figures in entertainment, politics, etc. It posits that, "the louder someone is for a value of ethic and/or moral behavior, the less likely they actually subscribed to it in their personal lives." The name comes from the stereotypical "Christian values" conservative who supports anti-LGBTQ legislation, only to get caught leaving a gay bar or sleeping with a male prostitute. This isn't isolated to such cases, as the Gay Republican fallacy applies to any case of a public figure who's a proponent for a specific cause/value getting outed for actions that contradict their advocacy. This can be a celebrity who's a big supporter of feminism, only to get ousted for having a history of predatory behavior. It could also be a reality TV show husband whose a proponent of "traditional family values" and being loyal to your wife getting caught having an affair or an account on an adult chat site. Maybe is comes from a place of guilt or self-loathing, or maybe these individuals' public personas are a self aware grift to draw up support from specific demographics (the religious, the politically correct, etc.). The answer is unclear, but the Gay Republican fallacy always has been and always will be; as ling as there's a celebrity or politician ruins their reputation by being a complete hypocrite.
Wow, James Franco hopped on the #metoo movement, only to get ousted for using his acting school to pressure female students into sleeping with him. Just another example of the Gay Republican Fallacy.
by Metrodweller33 March 20, 2024
Get the The Gay Republican fallacy mug.A humorous twist on the well-known logical fallacy called the “straw man fallacy”, derived from the iconic straw hat-wearing character Monkey D. Luffy in the popular manga and anime series “One Piece.” In the world of informal logic and debate, “The Luffy Fallacy” involves misrepresenting an opponent's argument by substituting it with a simpler, exaggerated, or caricatured version, similar to how Luffy’s whimsical adventures often lead to exaggerated misunderstandings. This fallacy serves as a reminder to engage in fair and honest discourse, avoiding the temptation to create straw man arguments for the sake of convenience or humor.
Person 1: “I think we should invest more in renewable energy sources to combat climate change.”
Person 2: “Whoa, hold on a sec! So you're saying we should just, like, drop giant rubber bands around the world and bounce energy off them? That sounds crazy!”
Person 1: “Whoa, that's a classic ‘Luffy Fallacy’ right there! I’m all for renewable energy, not rubber bands. Let’s stick to the real world.”
Person 2: “Whoa, hold on a sec! So you're saying we should just, like, drop giant rubber bands around the world and bounce energy off them? That sounds crazy!”
Person 1: “Whoa, that's a classic ‘Luffy Fallacy’ right there! I’m all for renewable energy, not rubber bands. Let’s stick to the real world.”
by yoshi_drinks_tea September 3, 2023
Get the Luffy Fallacy mug.You assert a Claim So stupid that you make your opponent dead therefore its under the retardation fallacy and your opponent automatically winz
by Big eggd December 5, 2024
Get the Retardation fallacy mug.by Jake433 October 10, 2021
Get the Fallacy limit mug.Similar to Ken Wilber's "Pre/trans fallacy", which is about conflating pre-rational views with trans-rational views, the Relative/absolute fallacy is about conflating relative perspectives with The Absolute perspective. This is the main source of confusion in the forms of spirituality that deal with the implications of non-duality (Oneness).
There are generally two levels to the fallacy:
1. The first level is the conflation that happens when you don't have knowledge about the distinction between the relative and The Absolute (dual/non-dual). This is common in pre-rational religious people (Wilber). The way that traditional religion interprets various holy texts is itself a good example.
2. The second level happens when you do have knowledge about the distinction between relative and absolute (but it's obviously not complete knowledge). This is common in (aspiring) trans-rational people. A common example is to think that because nothing ultimately really matters, morality doesn't matter, and therefore it's fine to for example hurt other people. This is to conflate "the relative" with "The Absolute". From The Absolute perspective, yes, nothing really matters, but morality can only ever be defined "relative" to a certain value system in the first place. By taking the absolute perspective, you're deliberately stepping outside of all value systems, but "it's fine to hurt other people" would be a moral statement, which means you're actually invoking a relative perspective.
There are generally two levels to the fallacy:
1. The first level is the conflation that happens when you don't have knowledge about the distinction between the relative and The Absolute (dual/non-dual). This is common in pre-rational religious people (Wilber). The way that traditional religion interprets various holy texts is itself a good example.
2. The second level happens when you do have knowledge about the distinction between relative and absolute (but it's obviously not complete knowledge). This is common in (aspiring) trans-rational people. A common example is to think that because nothing ultimately really matters, morality doesn't matter, and therefore it's fine to for example hurt other people. This is to conflate "the relative" with "The Absolute". From The Absolute perspective, yes, nothing really matters, but morality can only ever be defined "relative" to a certain value system in the first place. By taking the absolute perspective, you're deliberately stepping outside of all value systems, but "it's fine to hurt other people" would be a moral statement, which means you're actually invoking a relative perspective.
You're conflating relative perspectives with The Absolute perspective ("The Relative/Absolute Fallacy").
Albert thinks he is God and nobody else is. Albert has committed the Relative/Absolute Fallacy.
Albert thinks he is God and nobody else is. Albert has committed the Relative/Absolute Fallacy.
by Carich99 December 23, 2020
Get the The Relative/absolute fallacy mug.An argument that states that the existence of something before its first recording cannot exist or was less.
This comes from Mount Everest existing despite not being known to the western world until the 1800s.
This comes from Mount Everest existing despite not being known to the western world until the 1800s.
Shitbagpoliticiaon#34: We shall investigate why there was an increase of autistics when our diagnostic capabilities improved.
Person: Mount Everest Fallacy!
Person: Mount Everest Fallacy!
by Hoahobecth April 21, 2025
Get the Mount Everest Fallacy mug.