Talk:Wishful Thinking
From EvoWiki
I think that the moralistic fallacy is really a sub-fallacy of wishful thinking. Someone may wish something to be true independent of its moral status, after all. Do we really need the redirect? Escuerdo(talk)
- Personally I think that the moralistic fallacy should stand on its own as a seperate entry and wishful thinking should just become a synonym for an appeal to emotion/consequences. The two are actually a bit different. One asserts that what ought (morally) to be true is true. The other asserts that what one wants to be true is true. It may, of course, be possible for a person to want something that they acknowledge as immoral to be true, so while the two overlap neither is really a subset of the other. Of course, I haven't looked too deeply at the way the fallacies are setup here, so I might just be arguing for the status quo without realizing it. I think that the moralistic fallacy can only be considered a sub-fallacy of wishful thinking if you're a particular kind of moral subjectivist (emotivism?) or if you ignore the possibility of someone wanting evil things to be true. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 04:54, 25 Jun 2005 (BST)
