Kettle Logic

Now and then in these blogs, I pay attention to fallacies. I think that sound reasoning is important for avoiding mistakes in what we do and for seeing through false argumentation others use when trying to mislead us or by mistake. Especially politicians often use false argumentation, intentionally or unintentionally. But in fact all humans commit fallacies, often because they do not realize what is wrong with what they are saying. For instance, someone tries to defend his case, but instead of making his position stronger with strong arguments he makes conflicting statements, like in this fictitious case described by Sigmund Freud in his Interpretation of Dreams about “a man who was accused by his neighbour of having returned a kettle to him in a damaged condition. In the first place, he said, he had returned the kettle undamaged; in the second, it already had holes in it when he borrowed it; and thirdly, he had never borrowed the kettle from his neighbour at all. But so much the better; if even one of these three methods of defence is recognised as valid, the man must be acquitted.”
In his attempt to defend that he had returned the kettle in the condition he had received it (or even denying that he had borrowed the kettle), the man puts forward three arguments. Each argument as such is correct, but by putting forward three contradictory arguments to support his point the man he undermines his case. Because of Freud’s example the fallacy got the name “Kettle Logic”.
The logical form of Kettle Logic is:
- Argument 1 is put forward
- Argument 2 is put forward, which contradicts argument 1
- Argument 3 is put forward, which contradicts argument 1 and/or 2
- Etc.
Here is another example, a bit more realistic than Freud’s case: You are driving too fast and are stopped by a police officer. Your defence is: 1) I was not exceeding the speed limit; 2) I didn’t see the speed limit sign; 3) there was no speed limit sign. But beware, not all reasoning that is contradictory on the face of it need to be a matter of kettle logic. For instance, it can also be a matter of alternative reasoning, such as when several alternative contradictory arguments are given for the same conclusion, while it is not claimed that all premises are true: A defence attorney might claim that his defendant didn’t cause the murder, because he had alibis, and even if he had been there, he is too short to have stabbed the victim in the head. (from Wible)
I said that politicians often commit the kettle fallacy. Wible quotes several committed by US Vice President Dick Cheney, when defending the administration’s decision to invade Iraq and the subsequent problems there. Here is one: When asked about the damage done to Iraq, Cheney said that it was the Iraqis and not the allied forces who did the damage and that any invasion causes unfortunate horrific things to happen.
This fallacy makes me think of a case described by Seneca in his treatise on anger that I discussed last week (a case that is also described by Montaigne in his Essays). It is about Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (c. 44/43 BC – AD 20; a Roman statesman, consul, governor. etc.):
“A soldier that had leave to go abroad with his comrade, came back to the camp at his time, but without his companion. Piso condemned him to die, as if he had killed him, and appoints a centurion to see the execution. Just as the headsman was ready to do his office, the other soldier appeared, to the great joy of the whole field, and the centurion bade the executioner hold his hand. Hereupon Piso, in a rage, mounts the tribunal, and sentences all three to death: the one because he was condemned, the other because it was for his sake that his fellow-soldier was condemned, the centurion for not obeying the order of his superior. An ingenious piece of inhumanity, to contrive how to make three criminals, where effectively there were none.” (source)
This case looks a bit like Kettle Logic, but it isn’t. What kind of fallacy is it then? I have no idea, how to call it in English, but in Dutch we call it (translated) the “Barbertje should be hanged” fallacy: Lothario is accused of having murdered Barbertje. He denies and says that he had always taken good care of her. Therefore, the judge accuses him also of conceit, which makes his case only worse. Then Barbertje enters the courtroom, but Lothario is sentenced to death anyway, because he is still guilty of conceit, so the judge. (Note that the fallacy actually should be called the “Lothario should be hanged” fallacy). A decision once taken must be executed, anyhow, just because it has been taken. Anyone who opposes is also guilty. How often doesn’t it happen?

Sources
- Andy Wible, “Kettle Logic”, in Arp, Robert; Steven Barbone; Michael Bruce (eds.), Bad arguments. 100 of the most important fallacies in Western philosophy. Oxford, etc.: Wiley Blackwell, 2019; pp. 174-176.
- And also Wikipedia (on Kettle Logic); Wikipedia (on Barbertje); “Kettle Logic”.