A logical fallacy is reasoning mistake or error that makes an argument invalid. Logical fallacies are non-sequiturs, i.e., arguments where the conclusion doesn't follow logically from what preceded it. In essence, a logic fallacy is an invalid connection between a premise(s) (fact(s)) and the conclusion, because the conclusion does not necessarily flow from the premises. Often the facts are disputed as not facts. The human mind did not evolve to do precise logic. People make various kinds of mistakes unless they are aware of the errors and consciously try to avoid them. Instead of using formal logic, humans usually rely on informal logic, which is probably best called reasoning.
One source says this about appeals to hypocrisy: “Tu Quoque [an appeal to hypocrisy] is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.”
Defending ones-self from a hypocrisy charge makes the rhetorical mistake called stepping into an opponent’s frame, as mentioned here yesterday. That's probably why charges of hypocrisy in politics are almost always ignored and not even denied. Even a short, simple denial steps into the opponent’s frame, thereby strengthening the opponent’s argument.
Is alleging hypocrisy a logic fallacy?
Whataboutism or hypocrisy is a fallacy sometimes based on the argument that since someone or some group did something bad in the past, doing it now is justified. Sometimes that is true and sometimes it isn’t. An appeal to hypocrisy is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit an opponent’s argument by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accord with its conclusion(s). The logic looks like this:
1. Person A makes claim X, e.g., the president claims Hillary Clinton was sloppy about national security for using an unsecured personal server for official government business.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X, e.g., a critic claims the president is sloppy about national security for using an unsecured cell phone for official government business.
3. Therefore, X is false.
A Wikipedia article asserts that the conclusion, X is false, is “a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument. It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem [personal attack] fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.”[2]
Is that true? Sometimes it is, but sometimes it doesn’t seem to be. Why? Because the moral character or actions of the opponent are clearly relevant to both the facts and the logic of the argument. In the national security sloppiness example above, X is true because the underlying facts and logic apply to the same concern, i.e., national security sloppiness. In Clinton’s server case, she was sloppy and X is clearly true. In the president’s cell phone case, he is still being sloppy. This particular appeal to hypocrisy therefore does not constitute seem to be a logic fallacy. It points out truth in two different situations.
Q: Does the foregoing analysis get it wrong? Is a charge of hypocrisy or whataboutism never logically sound because the underlying facts and logic always have to be evaluated independently?
1. Person A makes claim X, e.g., the president claims Hillary Clinton was sloppy about national security for using an unsecured personal server for official government business.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X, e.g., a critic claims the president is sloppy about national security for using an unsecured cell phone for official government business.
3. Therefore, X is false.
A Wikipedia article asserts that the conclusion, X is false, is “a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument. It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem [personal attack] fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.”[2]
Is that true? Sometimes it is, but sometimes it doesn’t seem to be. Why? Because the moral character or actions of the opponent are clearly relevant to both the facts and the logic of the argument. In the national security sloppiness example above, X is true because the underlying facts and logic apply to the same concern, i.e., national security sloppiness. In Clinton’s server case, she was sloppy and X is clearly true. In the president’s cell phone case, he is still being sloppy. This particular appeal to hypocrisy therefore does not constitute seem to be a logic fallacy. It points out truth in two different situations.
Q: Does the foregoing analysis get it wrong? Is a charge of hypocrisy or whataboutism never logically sound because the underlying facts and logic always have to be evaluated independently?
Footnotes:
1. One example is the president criticizing the Clintons for having conflicts of interest due to their charity, while the president operates with conflicts of interest by continuing to profit from his for-profit businesses. The degree of the conflict the president is subject to is 100-fold to 1000-fold bigger financially than anything the Clinton charity ever constituted. Assuming the Clinton charity constituted an unacceptable conflict of interest, and it did, the situation for the president is far worse both qualitatively and quantitatively, but both situations constituted actual conflicts of interest.
Another example is how the GOP treated the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury (lying under oath) and an alleged obstruction of justice. The GOP enthusiastically pursued investigations into Clinton’s bad acts. By contrast, the GOP rejected and/or ignored evidence of obstruction of justice by the president, including blatant obstruction of congress during the impeachment inquiry. The GOP opposed any investigation by the House, Senate and the Department of Justice. The two situations are vastly different. Clinton’s bad acts constituted instances of bad judgment in lying under oath and immoral personal sexual behavior. On the other hand, the president’s bad acts go straight to corrupting governance and betraying the trust people put in him to be an honest politician while in office. The two situations are different but both still focus on differences in how evidence of bad acts is treated.
2. Wikipedia cites this as an example of the fallacy: “In the trial of Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, the controversial lawyer Jacques Vergès tried to present what was defined as a Tu Quoque Defence—i.e., that during the Algerian War, French officers such as General Jacques Massu had committed war crimes similar to those with which Barbie was being charged, and therefore the French state had no moral right to try Barbie. This defense was rejected by the court, which convicted Barbie.”
No comments:
Post a Comment