- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Communities
- 8.4K All Communities
- 256 Technology
- 1.9K Politics
- 703 United States
- 601 Global
- 65 Immigration
- 1.9K Religion
- 240 TV SHOWS
- 61 Movies
- 81 History
- 44 Work Place
- 481 Philosophy
- 414 Science
- 62 Earth Science
- 10 Books
- 101 Economy
- 34 Investments
- 17 Europe
- 11 Tea
- 7 Coffee
- 59 Sports
- 43 Products
- 283 News
- 13 Airplanes
- 33 Cars
- 857 General
- 10 Mafia Games
- 24 Art And Design
- 20 Space
- 50 Military
- 3 Premium Member
DEBATE NEWS BREAKING NEWS
Surgeons perform first known kidney transplant with awake patient
28-year-old John Nicholas was able to watch in real time as surgeons at Northwestern Medicine replaced his old kidney for his new one, using a single-spinal anesthesia shot as opposed to the typical general...
In this Debate
"Broken historical window" fallacy
Debate Information
The "broken window" fallacy was defined by Frederic Bastiat. In the most general case, it involves performing a biased analysis of consequences of the action, where only the actual observed consequences are considered, while consequences that would happen if the action was not taken are not.
The common example is a kid throwing a rock at a store's window. One can make the following argument: "It is good that the window was broken! Now the storekeeper has to hire someone to repair the window, and that someone will get a job and be paid for it. That someone, in turn, will need to acquire glass and instruments to repair the window, and producers of those will get a job and be paid for it... A lot of economical activity was created!"
The fallacy here is quite obvious: the argument-maker forgot to consider the cost of the repairs inflicted on the storekeeper. The storekeeper has to spend money to get the window repaired, the money that he would otherwise spend on producing more goods to sell. That lost economical activity is not observed - you cannot observe that which is not there - and is dismissed from the original analysis.
Henry Hazlitt wrote a genius book "Economics in One Lesson" in which he shows that virtually all popular economical fallacies are variations of the "broken window" fallacy. It is not hard to find this fallacy in non-economical domains as well: for example, the common argument in favor of the Affirmative Action policies - that they give an opportunity to a member of a minority group that otherwise they would not have - fails to consider the fact that that opportunity was taken away from someone else, and it is not at all clear that the net result is positive. In fact, there are good reasons to suspect that it is likely to be negative, since the person appointed through an Affirmative Action policy is, pretty much by definition, likely to be less qualified than their non-affirmative counterpart (otherwise they would not need the policy to get the appointment in the first place).
I was listening to a debate between Richard Dawkins and Ayaan Hirsi Ali today, and Ayaan made the popular argument: that the West has gotten so prosperous as a product of Judeo-Christian values. In fact, she argued, the Enlightenment happened on the West, of all places, exactly because of Christianity. Richard's objection that Enlightenment values clearly are at odds with the Christian faith-based approach was not really refuted, but, instead, Ayaan said, "The fact that it did happen on the West proves it wrong" (I am paraphrasing).
When I heard that, I suddenly realized that it is the "broken window" fallacy! The argument suggests that, since the Enlightenment happened in the Christian world, Christianity must be responsible for it. Similarly, people will say that Slavery was abolished in the Christian world, hence the anti-slavery stance must be a logical derivative of Christianity.
A few obvious errors here:
- The "broken window" fallacy here is the assumption that, in the absence of Christianity, Enlightenment would not have happened on the West. It is possible that it would have happened on the West regardless of what religion it ended up following, since religion is merely one of the ingredients here. Furthermore, it is possible that, in the absence of Christianity, it would have happened sooner: one could argue that the Ancient Greeks were on the way to it, and Roman Empire followed their footsteps. Then Christianity was adopted in the Empire, and, well...
- Correlation does not imply causation. Suppose I love cucumbers, and I happen to meet the love of my life when eating a salad with cucumbers. The idea that my love for cucumbers is to thank for me meeting the love of my life is clearly preposterous.
- While Enlightenment undoubtedly happened on the West, it was not exclusive to the West. If by "Enlightenment" one understands the idea that the world can be understood through rational reasoning, as opposed to communication with some supernatural forces, then it existed in various forms throughout history and in different societies - and it exists in many societies today. If I explain what Enlightenment is about to a Japanese person, they will likely say, "Yeah, all this makes sense. That is how I think as well". All developed nations have large numbers of people who share the ideas of the Enlightenment, so it clearly does not have Judeo-Christian values as a prerequisite.
Furthermore, addressing the specific "prosperity" claim by Ayaan, one could argue that many non-Christian nations acquired much more prosperity in a given period of time, than the West. Look at the Asian tigers such as Singapore, Taiwan, Korea and Japan: each of them within a couple of generations at some point was elevated from a bunch of impoverished villages to one of the top world's economical powers - and they also happen to be the least religious societies in the world. There are no examples of such extreme jumps in prosperity on the West.
But I digress.
This fallacy comes up in many other historical discussions as well. In Russia, many people claim that Hitler's Germany would not have been defeated without the Soviet Union, therefore the Soviet Union should be celebrated for ending World War 2. Yet there is no reason to believe that a different state in place of the Soviet Union could not have handled the war just as well or much better. Furthermore, it is likely that Hitler would not have taken power in Germany in the first place were people not intimidated by the alternative being a communist takeover - and that alternative, in turn, would not exist without the largest country in the world having become communist. Communism would probably have been an edgy philosophy of an edgy German philosopher, and nobody would have taken it seriously.
Any thoughts/additions/criticisms are welcome!
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
Thats very interesting stuff but there is also the theory about how money and wealth is a continually rotating merry go a round and also that you cannot create or destroy energy you can only transfer it.
So in this case about the broken window we should look at the probable realties of the situation like:
The store owner would have insurance so he would make a claim witch would cover the damage and replacement.
All so I bet the kids dad would have kicked the kids but and made him pay back the store keeper by doing cleaning or shelf stocking. So therefore goodwill was created and the kid would grow up being good and honest by learning his lesson and be more productive to society rather than being a continuous delinquent because he never learned a lesson.
Considerate: 100%
Substantial: 100%
Sentiment: Negative
Avg. Grade Level:
Sources:
Relevant (Beta): 100%
Learn More About Debra