12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men is the story of 12 jurors that must decide if a boy is guilty or not guilty of killing his father. It takes place in an enclosed environment where the jurors must come a unanimous conclusion.
I really enjoyed watching this movie. I had read the book in middle school for my English class, but I did not truly enjoy and understand the story till watching it in this class. 12 Angry Men really shows the power of critical reasoning and how it can help people understand problems in a more logical way. At first, all but one of the jurors thought that the boy was guilty of murder. After going through all the evidence and understanding the backstory through logical and critical reasoning, the jurors turned their viewpoint a complete 180 degrees and decided a non-guilty verdict.
I think that the biggest way that the jurors came to this non-guilty verdict was by the analysis of the fallacies that they were committing. A fallacy is a statement that uses flawed logic and is usually seen as a misconception. It was a long and difficult process because the jurors themselves were committing these fallacies and it took time for them to understand that.
One of most obvious fallacy that was committed was the Appeal to Belief fallacy. This is when a majority of the people claim that one claim is true, so other people think that it must be true. This happened in the 12 Angry Men when everyone initially was casting their votes. Most people voted guilty and one of the jurors, when asked why he chose guilty, said that most of the other ones chose non-guilty so he also chose that. This is considered a fallacy due to the fact that just because the majority of the population is saying/doing it, it does not mean that its right. The juror that said this reason can be seen as committing the Bandwagon fallacy as well because he might be afraid of what other will think or say about him if he does not agree with them
Another fallacy that is committed in the 12 Angry Men is the Hasty Generalization fallacy. This fallacy occurs when a claim is made about a population, when the population size is too small, or such claim cannot be made due to the majority of the population. This occurred when one of the jurors claimed that the boy had to have committed the murder because he was from the slums. This juror proclaimed that all people from the slums are criminals and since the boy is of slum origin, he killed his father. This is a hasty generalization because a person cannot say that since most of a population has a certain characteristic, a specific person from that population has that characteristic as well. This should not be a form of evidence.
A third fallacy that I want to talk about that was committed in this movie was the Post Hoc fallacy. This fallacy says that one event is the reason why another event occurred. This is used in the 12 Angry Men a little different. In the 12 Angry Men, it is said that because of one event, another event had to have occurred in a certain way. It is said that the father of the defendant used to beat the defendant. This is why some of the jurors say that the defendant had to have killed his father. Some of the jurors believe that the beating of the defendant slowly added up and the defendant snapped and killed his father. This is a fallacy because it does not prove that the defendant in fact did kill his father. It does show that it might have happened, but there is no solid link to the events.
The juror that said not guilty at first used all these fallacies to his events. He tried to prove to the best of his ability that the other jurors were committing fallacies, rather than actually connecting the evidence to come to a solid conclusion. Using these fallacies to their advantage, the jurors were able to prove that logically the defendant might actually be innocent.
The fallacies are one of the main reasons I loved watching this movie. I think that learning about the fallacies and then seeing them in a potential real-world situation really caught my attention. I was able to understand why critical reasoning is truly important because some action can have so many different outcomes. To create the best outcome, you must truly analyze what, why, and how you are doing something.
I really enjoyed watching this movie. I had read the book in middle school for my English class, but I did not truly enjoy and understand the story till watching it in this class. 12 Angry Men really shows the power of critical reasoning and how it can help people understand problems in a more logical way. At first, all but one of the jurors thought that the boy was guilty of murder. After going through all the evidence and understanding the backstory through logical and critical reasoning, the jurors turned their viewpoint a complete 180 degrees and decided a non-guilty verdict.
I think that the biggest way that the jurors came to this non-guilty verdict was by the analysis of the fallacies that they were committing. A fallacy is a statement that uses flawed logic and is usually seen as a misconception. It was a long and difficult process because the jurors themselves were committing these fallacies and it took time for them to understand that.
One of most obvious fallacy that was committed was the Appeal to Belief fallacy. This is when a majority of the people claim that one claim is true, so other people think that it must be true. This happened in the 12 Angry Men when everyone initially was casting their votes. Most people voted guilty and one of the jurors, when asked why he chose guilty, said that most of the other ones chose non-guilty so he also chose that. This is considered a fallacy due to the fact that just because the majority of the population is saying/doing it, it does not mean that its right. The juror that said this reason can be seen as committing the Bandwagon fallacy as well because he might be afraid of what other will think or say about him if he does not agree with them
Another fallacy that is committed in the 12 Angry Men is the Hasty Generalization fallacy. This fallacy occurs when a claim is made about a population, when the population size is too small, or such claim cannot be made due to the majority of the population. This occurred when one of the jurors claimed that the boy had to have committed the murder because he was from the slums. This juror proclaimed that all people from the slums are criminals and since the boy is of slum origin, he killed his father. This is a hasty generalization because a person cannot say that since most of a population has a certain characteristic, a specific person from that population has that characteristic as well. This should not be a form of evidence.
A third fallacy that I want to talk about that was committed in this movie was the Post Hoc fallacy. This fallacy says that one event is the reason why another event occurred. This is used in the 12 Angry Men a little different. In the 12 Angry Men, it is said that because of one event, another event had to have occurred in a certain way. It is said that the father of the defendant used to beat the defendant. This is why some of the jurors say that the defendant had to have killed his father. Some of the jurors believe that the beating of the defendant slowly added up and the defendant snapped and killed his father. This is a fallacy because it does not prove that the defendant in fact did kill his father. It does show that it might have happened, but there is no solid link to the events.
The juror that said not guilty at first used all these fallacies to his events. He tried to prove to the best of his ability that the other jurors were committing fallacies, rather than actually connecting the evidence to come to a solid conclusion. Using these fallacies to their advantage, the jurors were able to prove that logically the defendant might actually be innocent.
The fallacies are one of the main reasons I loved watching this movie. I think that learning about the fallacies and then seeing them in a potential real-world situation really caught my attention. I was able to understand why critical reasoning is truly important because some action can have so many different outcomes. To create the best outcome, you must truly analyze what, why, and how you are doing something.