Motte and Bailey Defined
The Motte and Bailey fallacy is a rhetorical switch between defensible, easy-to-accept claims (the 'motte') and controversial, harder-to-defend claims (the 'bailey') under the same argumentative umbrella.
Fallacy's Historical Origin
The term originates from medieval castle architecture, where the 'motte' is a fortified hill and 'bailey' an adjacent courtyard. It metaphorically illustrates the shifting of argumentative positions.
Social Justice Usage
In social justice, proponents might defend a popular principle (motte) but conflate it with more radical positions (bailey), causing confusion and weakening opponents' counterarguments.
Identifying the Fallacy
Detecting this fallacy involves discerning when an arguer retreats to trivial truths during critique, yet promotes controversial views when unchallenged.
Impact on Discourse
The Motte and Bailey tactic can stifle productive debate in social justice by preventing a clear understanding of the positions being argued.
Strategies for Engagement
To constructively engage, clarify terms, separate broadly acceptable claims from contentious ones, and address both sets of claims individually.
Beyond the Fallacy
Awareness of this fallacy encourages more precise arguments in social justice discourse, fostering progress through honest and clear communication.