The Gaming Den

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.