Friend argument

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
An experienced bigot! Oh, boy!
Part of the series on
Logic and rhetoric
Icon logic.svg
Key articles
General logic
Bad logic
I'm not a murderer; some of my best friends are alive.
—Sean Lock

The friend argument is an argument used by people who want to claim knowledge about and/or sympathy with a group, by referring to their "friends" belonging to this group. It is commonly used to clear and absolve oneself from suspicion of racism, xenophobia or other kinds of prejudice. It is a particular form of the "Not prejudiced, but..." statement.

Conversely, if the above argument — that "if you're close to somebody, you can't wish to do them harm" — were true, one would expect to see far fewer (read: zero) domestic abuse cases.


  • "I don't hate blacks. I have many black friends. But..."
  • "I am not homophobic. I have a gay friend, and he is OK. But..."[1]
  • "Some of my friends are atheists. But..."
  • "Dr. Bloch, is an Edeljude (a noble Jew.) If all Jews were like him, there would be no Jewish question."

The friend argument is one of the laziest ways to try to worm out of accepting the responsibility for endorsing prejudice. The idea is that someone cannot be prejudiced if they have friends of that demographic; if they had a real prejudice against that full group, then none of them would be okay to hang around, and conversely, then that member of said group would no longer be their friend.

In a rather absurd example, someone can cite a specific example that excuses their general behaviour, for example "how can I be a misogynist, I love my mother."- or, in an even more absurd example "I'm not sexist- after all, all of my girlfriends have been female." While this line of reasoning might be true for someone who genuinely doesn't have a general prejudice, it isn't a good argument to prove it - and it certainly doesn't absolve someone who actually does hold such a belief. Such argumentation can be used as 'evidence' that someone is not prejudiced, but this alone does not amount to 'proof'. The underlying fallacy is that one single point of data, this one "friend," completely overrides any other bits of evidence we have to assess someone's views. This is simply not valid reasoning. The presence (or not) of a prejudice is determined by what follows the "But..." in those above examples, not what comes before.

Often, the excuse is accompanied by the fact that this hypothetical friend is "not typical" of the group being discriminated against. This would be like saying "I have a Muslim friend, he's not a typical Muslim because he doesn't fly planes into buildings," or "my friend is an atheist and he doesn't preach about it like Dawkins". This usually reveals more about where someone's prejudices towards a group stem from; anecdotal evidence, selective reporting of the "bad" ones, or existing stereotypes. The fact is, a person attempting this argument is guilty of forming a prejudice against an entire group by only looking at a few examples that confirm their views.

Having a friend who belongs to a demographic that one hates isn't incompatible with a prejudice against that demographic - and this is the key to the fallacy. A prejudice, is by its etymology a "pre-judgement" of someone, based on more general information that may not necessarily apply to an individual. This can be a relatively benign conclusion ("he's a gay man, he must like fashion") or it can be the considerably more negative ("he's a black man, he's going to stab me"). However, once some has actually gotten beyond the stage of judging someone on prior knowledge, they can change their mind about that individual. In many cases, this might overturn the prejudice entirely but in the case of people using the friend argument, it has only overturned the prejudice against one individual, or maybe a few more. The prejudice, the pre-judgement against a group of people, still stands. This is why saying you have a friend in one particular demographic doesn't excuse racism, homophobia or other prejudice; you can't have a pre-judgement about someone you already know, but you can still maintain your pre-judgement against people you haven't met.

The Confederacy's black friends[edit]

A common claim found in Lost Cause tracts is that there were thousands of black soldiers fighting on the side of the Confederacy. The number is, of course, severely inflated. While cases of black Confederate soldiers can be found, the idea of entire black regiments is a myth and a number of Southern generals explicitly rejected this idea. In a number of these cases as well, black slaves and servants are re-spun as soldiers.[2][3][4] Less than four hundred black soldiers were called up, near the end of the war as a desperation tactic. Most of them never saw combat, and a majority deserted for the Union lines. It could be said that these mythical soldiers were the Confederacy's "black friends."

Hitler's Noble Jew[edit]

Perhaps one of the most clear examples that can illustrate this fallacy is Eduard Bloch. During his youth Adolf Hitler was treated by jewish doctor Eduard Bloch. He later treated Adolf's mother Klara Hitler of breast cancer, because of the poor economic situation of the Hitler family Dr. Bloch charged reduced fees, sometimes taking no fee at all for his work. Despite the fact that Klara died, the young Hitler was very extremely to him even going as far as to declare his "eternal gratitude" for him. Indeed in the following years Hitler sent the doctor a postcard assuring him of such gratitude and reverence, even sending him handmade gifts like a large wall painting. Years latter as a dictator Hitler frequently inquired about Bloch's well being. Though Bloch initially was disturbed after Germany's annexation of Austria and his medical practice was forced to be closed, after sending Hitler a letter asking for help was placed under special protection by the Gestapo, he was allowed to resume his medical practice, retain his passport and remain completely undisturbed before he migrated to the United States. In fact Hitler went as far as to claim that if all Jews were like Dr. Bloch, discrimination against Jews would be entirely unecessary. Yet despite this, it didn't prevented the well known discrimation from Nazi Germany to the overwhelming majority of the Jewish population, which is exactly the problem with the Friend Argument.

See also[edit]

Si vous voulez cet article en français, il peut être trouvé à Argument de l'ami.

External links[edit]