3 3 5C o u n t e r e x a m p l e sof a certain kind have a certain feature, (1) one can deny that the appar-
ent counterexample really is a thing of that kind, or (2) one can deny that
the supposed counterexample really lacks that feature. For example, a
defender of the claim that all snakes lay eggs might deny (1) that rattle-
snakes are snakes, or (2) that rattlesnakes bear their young alive. Neither
of these responses is plausible in this case. That is what makes this coun-
terexample decisive.
Other counterexamples are not decisive. Indeed, some purported
counterexamples miss their targets entirely. If a person claims that all
snakes except rattlesnakes lay eggs, someone might respond with an-
other counterexample: male snakes. This counterexample does not really
refute the intended claim, since that claim was meant to be about the
methods by which female snakes of various species give birth when they
do give birth.
When a counterexample can be answered with a simple clarification or
modification that does not affect the basic force of the original claim, it
is a shallow counterexample. A deep counterexample is one that requires
the original claim to be modified in more important or interesting ways.
Shallow counterexamples can sometimes be fun as jokes, but they are
usually not of much help in refuting arguments, since basically the same
argument can be resurrected in a slightly different form. Indeed, people
who give too many shallow counterexamples can be annoying. If you
really want to understand a subject matter, you should look for counterex-
amples that are deep.
Ethics is an area where arguments often turn on counterexamples. Con-
sider the traditional moral precept “Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you.” This principle captures an important moral insight,
but, if taken quite literally, it is also subject to counterexamples. After
a defendant is found guilty of murder, a judge sentences the defendant
to prison, even though the judge would not want to be treated that way
herself—she would not want to be sentenced to prison. The Golden Rule
was not intended to rule out the judge’s behavior, though it seems to.
Conversely, a sadomasochist enjoys beating other people. When asked
whether he would like to be treated in that way, he replies, “Yes.” It is
obvious that the Golden Rule was not intended to approve of the sado-
masochist’s behavior, but it seems to. The task, then, is to reformulate the
Golden Rule so as to avoid these (and similar) counterexamples. That is
not as easy as it might seem.
No discussion of counterexamples is complete without a mention of the
Morgenbesser retort. Though the exact story is now shrouded in the mists
of time, it has come down to us from the 1950s in the following form: In
a lecture, a British philosopher remarked that he knew of many languages
in which a double negative means an affirmative, but not one language in
which a double affirmative means a negative. From the back of the room
came Sydney Morgenbesser’s retort: “Yeah, yeah.”97364_ch17_ptg01_333-350.indd 335 15/11/13 11:12 AM
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.