Friday, April 25, 2008

Just Another Fallacy: Fajardo and SBMA on Hanjin

Malacanang Spokesperson, Atty. Lorelei Fajardo, and the Subic Bay Metropolitian Authority committed another fallacy by arguing that Hanjin should not be put into bad light with regards the environment as it is contributing a lot to the Philippine economy. Sabi ni Fajardo, it is infusing billions of dollar-worth investments. Sabi naman ng SBMA, it is generating a lot of employment as Hanjin helps build ships, which employs Filipinos, and ships employ seamen, which also utilizes Filipinos.

The problem is, they seem to evade the issue -- the effect of Hanjin operations on the environment particularly on the construction of the condominium in the middle of a forest. And clearly, there is already a violation for the company had cut trees more than what it is permitted to do so. Para bang argumento ni Catholic Bishop Cinense na wag na muna nating palitan si Arroyo dahil negatibo sa ekonomiya.

These people seem to forget to argue by attacking directly the argument not belaboring it with other things. The Arroyo issue, for instance, involves a moral issue and therefore, Cinense should argue on moral grounds not on economic grounds. Besides, morality is Cinense's expertise being a supposedly guardian of morality. Kaya lang, it appears na he shifted his area of expertise -- economy.

The same with Fajardo. As a lawyer, she should argue on legal grounds. The problem she has to solve is whether or not what the Hanjin did is legal. If bastardizing the environment is legal, ok lang yun. Ang importante, Fajardo answered based on her area of expertise. But talking about investments? And economy? And evading the issue of legality?

Argumentum ad envidiam is also the line of the SBMA. Though simple lang naman sana ang tanong: Base ba sa SBMA land use plan, tama ba ang ginawa ng Hanjin? Kaso, they made it complicated by appealing to the social condition of the people. Are they hiding something?

Kung sabagay, consistent din naman sila. Their boss who, instead of answering the charges of corruption and mal-administration, would rather appeal to the "need to consider the economy and economic growth". And there is this saying: Kung ano ang puno, ganun din ang bunga.

But one funny thing: When Satan tempted Jesus, the devil also used food (which Gloria is also doing when she is offering rice and noodles to the hungry "masa")and wealth (just like the economic argument of Cinense, Fajardo, and the SBMA). Is this just a plain coincidence?

Hmmmnnn :-?

No comments: