# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## How hypocrisy negates logic or TuQuoque got his groove back.

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

5 posts • Page 1 of 1

Cynic
  Prince
  Posts: 2776
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### How hypocrisy negates logic or TuQuoque got his groove back.

- Quote

Post by Cynic » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:24 pm

This refers to logical fallacies. The tu quoque fallacy is the easiest one to pint this at.
An ad hominem tu quoque goes like that.
Person X makes Argument Y.
Person Z makes the point that Person X's actions are inconsistent with Argument Y.
Therefore Argument Y is invalid.
Arun: I believe that non-vegetarianism and the use of animal by-products is horrible and wrong.
Shantha: Well, you are wearing snake-skin shoes and have beeswax in your hair.
Arun: So?
Shantha: if you believe that animal by-product use and non-vegetarianism is wrong and you use such products, then your belief and is negated.
Arun: ...
--
But another argument might go like this. (sidenote: godwin's law obviously renders this argument false...)
HItler: Genocide and racial supremacy is wrong.
Roosevelt: Well, you kill jews, gypsies, and homosexuals and think that Aryans are the awesome.
Hitler: Oh, well then. I am obviously wrong. My bad!
The second is a much more extreme version of the first and because of the inherent hypocrisy of Hitler's statement, I'm almost knee jerked into saying that Roosevelt is right.
This is more of a case of ethics versus logic. My question for the many armchair, recliner, hammock, and vine-swinging philosophers on the board is how is the argument the same for both of the above examples? How are ethics resolved against logic?

> Ancient History wrote:We were working on Street Magic, and Frank asked me if a houngan had run over my dog.

Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:36 pm

Um... ethics aren't real so they don't interact with logic at all.
I mean, what do you want.
Seriously, ask yourself, instead of "You don't follow those rules, so your argument is wrong." what if you just said "Why is that wrong?"
I mean, ultimately any attempted trace of wrong, even for things like genocide, is always going to end in the personal preferences of the person who said X was wrong, because there is no other grounding of ethics.
If you want to change someone's ethical beliefs, you change what things they do and don't like.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Maj
  Prince
  Posts: 4705
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

###

- Quote

Post by Maj » Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:38 am

> Cynic wrote:This is more of a case of ethics versus logic. My question for the many armchair, recliner, hammock, and vine-swinging philosophers on the board is how is the argument the same for both of the above examples? How are ethics resolved against logic?

What I see when I look at this is a very fine line that most people don't notice that they notice.
Logically speaking, this sort of reasoning falls flat because it dismisses Y. Ethically speaking, the argument falls flat because it dismisses X.
The Republicans and fiscal responsibility are a good example of what I mean. Fiscal responsibility is a clarion call for the Republicans right now, yet many of them aren't fiscally responsible (see the RNC).
When you attack them logically, you commit the fallacy by discarding what they stand for - they're hypocrites, therefore fiscal responsibility is a bad policy. When you attack them ethically, you attack them for being hypocrites; the validity of the policy is incidental.
Logic really doesn't do a good job of judging, unlike ethics where judging seems to be the whole point.
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
Top

Data Vampire
  Master
  Posts: 212
  Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 5:09 am

###

- Quote

Post by Data Vampire » Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:36 pm

By the A and not A fallacy, if someone holds two conflicting ethical standards one must be wrong. However, you cannot guarantee which so you must examine both of them.

> Kaelik wrote:Um... ethics aren't real so they don't interact with logic at all.

That's not true. You need a moral premise added to the logic chain to get a ethical argument and that's it.
BhEuWmAaRnE
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Mon Feb 21, 2011 2:22 pm

> Data Vampire wrote:

> > Kaelik wrote:Um... ethics aren't real so they don't interact with logic at all.

> That's not true. You need a moral premise added to the logic chain to get a ethical argument and that's it.

And since all moral premises are either false, or an example of someone describing their own preferences and believing that that counts as a moral premise, all ethical argument are unsound, ergo, ethics do not exist.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

5 posts • Page 1 of 1

Return to “MPSIMS”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS