When a person or institution relies on positive moral labels to justify their behaviour or argument, replacing reason and facts with them, they commit the Appeal to Virtue Fallacy.
Definition:
The Appeal to Virtue Fallacy occurs when a person or institution, instead of presenting reason, evidence, or clear logic, uses moral words and symbols to make their statements or actions appear justified.
In this case, “virtue” is used not as a moral standard but as a cover to hide weak reasoning or to serve personal interests.
For example, a company that promotes unhealthy products under slogans such as “for honest and pure families” seeks to give its goods a moral appearance.
Typical structure of this fallacy:
- A moral or ethical virtue (X) is presented, one whose value is universally accepted.
- A person or institution claims to be aligned with this virtue (X) to justify their words, actions, or decisions.
- False conclusion: since we are aligned with this virtue, our words or actions must be right and trustworthy.
Examples from real life:
1. In politics:
“We are the Party of Justice, therefore our tax policy is fair.”
Here, it should be noted that merely claiming commitment to justice does not guarantee that economic decisions are fair. A moral name or slogan cannot replace genuine analysis and evaluation.
2. In advertising:
“This company promotes its products under the slogan ‘Clean living for a better future.’”
Here, it should be noted that using pleasant moral words such as “purity” or “responsibility” has no connection with the actual quality of the company’s products. This slogan serves only to gain the consumer’s trust.
3. In everyday life:
“I am a religious and honest person, so my judgement on this matter must be correct.”
Here, it should be noted that religious belief or good intention cannot replace real knowledge or competence. Merely claiming honesty or faith is not evidence of the soundness of one’s judgement.
Why is this fallacy dangerous?
- It weakens critical thinking, as people trust moral appearances or good intentions instead of asking for evidence.
- It allows individuals and institutions to hide behind virtuous slogans and evade accountability.
- By repeating empty moral slogans, the distinction between moral appearance and reality disappears in society, and hypocrisy and deceit replace honesty.
How can we recognise and respond to it?
If in an argument you see that moral concepts are being used to justify a conclusion, ask:
– Has the speaker merely used moral words and symbols such as “justice”, “honesty”, or “responsibility”, or have they provided a clear and measurable definition of these concepts? [1]
– Is the use of moral slogans and virtues genuine and sincere, or is it aimed at gaining trust and serving the speaker’s own interests?
An appropriate response might be: “I respect good intentions and moral values, but using these virtues as mere slogans does not lead us anywhere. Please present your evidence or reasoning and show to what extent you actually adhere to these claims.”
Conclusion:
The Appeal to Virtue Fallacy reminds us that beautiful words and lofty moral values, if lacking clear definition and substance, can become tools of deception.
In this form of deceit, the appearance of virtue is used to serve personal or organisational interests and replaces genuine responsibility.
No word, however sacred, can by itself be proof of the rightness or goodness of an action.
Recognising this fallacy teaches us to seek morality not in slogans but in behaviour, structure, and tangible results.
Only through defining concepts scientifically and adopting clear ethical codes can we distinguish between sincere belief and the instrumental use of virtue, and prevent the spread of deceit and hypocrisy in society.
[1] The root of many instances of the Appeal to Virtue Fallacy lies in the lack of a precise definition of the very concept of “morality”. When a society or individual lacks clear and measurable ethical codes, words such as justice, honesty, or humanity become vague slogans that anyone can interpret according to their own preferences.
In such circumstances, even those who genuinely believe in morality may unintentionally fall into this fallacy.
Freedom from this deception becomes possible only when moral concepts are accompanied by scientific, empirical, and verifiable definitions rather than by emotions and beautiful words.
For this reason, in True Philosophy every concept derives its meaning from a precise definition, and secular moral codes are established on objective and universal criteria.