It is Unethical to Commit the Fallacy of Shifting Ground

By

Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif

©Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Following Aristotle, committing the Fallacy of Shifting Ground is a serious moral

sin, the crime of Sophistry, and a violation of Natural Law. A person “shifts ground,”

by taking a position in one argument, and then the opposite position in the next argument.

For example, the sophist might immorally charge someone with being immoral for

helping the poor on Day One, and then, on Day Two, the sophist charges the same, or a

different person with being immoral for not helping the poor. The Fallacy of Shifting

Ground is a corrolary of the Fallacy of asserting a Logical Contradiction. It is wrong,

and irrational, and unreasonable, to assert that A is true, and then, two hours later, assert

that A is false. However, an Equitable Exception can be taken from be guilty of the

Fallacy of Shifting Ground for tactical reasons when an opponent in an argument is

already Shifting Ground. Additionally, a Good Faith change in position is also an

exception to the prohibition against Shifting Ground. With respect to Lawyers, the

Fallacy of Shifting ground is prohibited by the Legal Ethics Rule which prohibits

positional conflicts in front of the same court. In fact, a more strict interpretation of the

positional conflict rule suggests that a Lawyer cannot change his or her basic legal

argument, but can only try to distinguish the case factually.