The Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy is a fascinating and insidious type of argumentative trickery. It’s a rhetorical
tactic used to make an argument appear stronger than it actually is by employing a clever linguistic sleight of
hand.

What is the Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy?

The term “Motte-and-Bailey” originates from medieval fortifications, where a motte was a raised earthwork or
mound, and a bailey was the courtyard or lower area surrounding the motte. The fallacy gets its name from the idea
that an arguer will defend their position by retreating to a safer, more defensible “mote” (a stronger claim) when
attacked, but then later advance back down into the “bailey” (the weaker original claim), as if they had been
defending it all along.

How does the Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy work?

Here’s an example to illustrate this fallacy:

Argument: “God is love. When we experience love, we are experiencing God.”

Critic: “But what about all the evil in the world? How can a loving God allow such atrocities?”

Defender (initially on the bailey): “Well, God works in mysterious ways, and sometimes his plan involves suffering
to ultimately bring about greater good.”

In this initial response, the defender seems to be making a weaker claim that God’s intentions are difficult to
understand.

Retreating to the Motte:

Critic: “That sounds like just a cop-out. If we can’t understand God’s intentions, then how can you be so sure he
exists?”

Defender (retreating to the motte): “Of course, I’m not saying that God is directly responsible for every evil
act. That would be absurd. What I mean is that God’s presence is always there, even in the midst of suffering,
offering comfort and guidance.”

By retreating to this stronger claim, the defender appears to have strengthened their argument.

Advancing back down into the Bailey:

Later in the conversation:

Defender (advancing back down into the bailey): “You see, God’s love is evident even in the darkest of times. When
we experience suffering, it’s a reminder that we’re not alone – God is always with us.”

Here, the defender seems to be reverting back to their original weaker claim, but now they appear more confident
and assertive.

What’s wrong with this tactic?

The Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy is problematic because it exploits our tendency to remember strong claims more than
weak ones. The arguer uses a weaker initial claim (the bailey) to entice the critic into engaging, then retreats
to a stronger, safer position (the motte) when attacked. Later, they re-advance back down into the bailey, making
it seem like their original claim was stronger all along.

How can you counter this fallacy?

To combat the Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy:

1. Keep track of the claims: Be aware of the shifts in language and the different claims being made.
2. Press for specificity: Ask for clear definitions and explanations to prevent vague or ambiguous statements.
3. Don’t let them switch: When you notice a retreat to a stronger claim, call out the defender on their inconsistency and insist they clarify which claim they’re
   actually defending.

By recognizing this fallacy, you’ll become more effective at identifying when someone is using linguistic trickery to make their argument appear more robust than it truly is.

---

Filed under: Uncategorized - @ September 26, 2024 5:42 pm