Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Keywords
argumentation, discretion, full enforcement, strict liability, zero tolerance fallacy
Start Date
22-5-2013 9:00 AM
End Date
25-5-2013 5:00 PM
Abstract
The zero tolerance fallacy occurs when someone advocates or adopts a zero tolerance policy towards some activity or behaviour without seeing if there is evidence to support the view that such a policy is the best or most cost-effective way of preventing or reducing the unwanted behaviour. This paper explores the idea that, instead of thinking about what the zero tolerance fallacy is (or what zero tolerance fallacies are), argumentation theorists should try to characterize what features good arguments for zero tolerance policies must have.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Response to Submission
Marcin Lewiński, Commentary on: Sheldon Wein's "Exploring the virtues (and vices) of zero tolerance arguments"
Reader's Reactions
Marcin Lewiński, Commentary on: Sheldon Wein's "Exploring the virtues (and vices) of zero tolerance arguments" (May 2013)
Included in
Exploring the virtues (and vices) of zero tolerance arguments
University of Windsor
The zero tolerance fallacy occurs when someone advocates or adopts a zero tolerance policy towards some activity or behaviour without seeing if there is evidence to support the view that such a policy is the best or most cost-effective way of preventing or reducing the unwanted behaviour. This paper explores the idea that, instead of thinking about what the zero tolerance fallacy is (or what zero tolerance fallacies are), argumentation theorists should try to characterize what features good arguments for zero tolerance policies must have.
