批判逻辑谬误

Your argument, while emotionally charged, seems to hinge on the idea that anyone who disagrees with your proposed societal structure must inherently be selfish or lacking empathy. I find that problematic.

Well, if their policies lead to increased suffering, then isn't it fair to question their motives? It's not about being selfish, it's about the outcomes.

Here's where I need to interject. You're committing an ad hominem fallacy there. Instead of addressing the validity of their policy proposals or the philosophical underpinnings of their arguments, you're attacking their character or motives by implying they're inherently uncaring.

I'm not attacking their character, I'm questioning why someone would propose something that could have negative effects. It’s a natural extension of debating policy.

But you've framed it as a personal failing rather than a disagreement on principles or predicted outcomes. The logical leap from 'they advocate X' to 'they are inherently selfish' undermines your ability to engage with the actual substance of X. It unfairly shifts the focus.

So, you're suggesting I should ignore the apparent implications of their stance on human well-being?

Not at all. You should critique the implications of their stance on human well-being by analyzing the policy itself, its mechanisms, and its potential effects, rather than attributing a negative moral failing to the person proposing it. Focus on the 'what,' not the 'who,' especially when it comes to character attacks.