Fallacies: Appeal to Hypocrisy

Summary

The script discusses 'ad hominem' fallacies, specifically the 'tu quoque' fallacy, where an argument is dismissed based on the arguer's inconsistency or hypocrisy. It uses the example of Jason, who criticizes factory farming yet eats at McDonald's, to illustrate how this fallacy is flawed. The argument's validity is independent of the arguer's personal actions. The script emphasizes that while hypocrisy might be justifiable, it doesn't invalidate an argument's premises or conclusion, which should be assessed on their own merits.

Takeaways

• 📚 An appeal to hypocrisy is a type of ad hominem fallacy where one rejects an argument based on the arguer's inconsistency or hypocrisy.
• 🌐 The Latin term for this fallacy is 'tu quoque', which translates to 'you too' or 'you also'.
• 🔍 The fallacy arises when one concludes that an argument is invalid simply because the person making it is a hypocrite.
• 🚫 The fallacy is a mistake because the validity of an argument is independent of the arguer's personal beliefs or actions.
• 🤔 The charge of hypocrisy might be justified, but it doesn't change the truth value of a premise or the validity of an argument.
• 📝 A schematic version of the fallacy involves inferring that an argument is bad because the person making it doesn't believe or act in accordance with the conclusion.
• 🔗 To strengthen the logic, one could add a conditional premise linking the arguer's inconsistency to the argument's validity, but this is not a valid approach.
• 🧠 The truth of an argument's claims is based on external facts, not on the arguer's personal behavior or beliefs.
• 🙅‍♂️ Hypocrisy charges are irrelevant to assessing the truth of factual claims about topics like factory farming or animal suffering.
• 🔑 However, hypocrisy can be relevant when evaluating someone's character or their suitability as a spokesperson for a cause.

Q & A

What is the 'Ad Hominem' fallacy?

The 'Ad Hominem' fallacy is a type of argument where one rejects someone's conclusion or argument based on the person's inconsistency or hypocrisy, rather than addressing the argument's merits.

What does the Latin term 'tu quoque' mean?

The Latin term 'tu quoque' translates to 'you too' or 'you also', and it refers to the fallacy of dismissing an argument due to the arguer's hypocrisy.

Why is it a fallacy to dismiss Jason's argument about factory farmed meat simply because he bought a McDonald's hamburger?

It is a fallacy because the validity of Jason's argument against factory farmed meat should be based on the argument's logic and evidence, not on his personal behavior or hypocrisy.

How does the 'Ad Hominem' fallacy work in the context of the script?

In the script, the 'Ad Hominem' fallacy is demonstrated by dismissing Jason's argument against eating factory farmed meat because he himself bought a hamburger, implying hypocrisy.

What is the difference between a valid argument and an invalid one according to the script?

A valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises, while an invalid argument is one where the conclusion does not logically follow, regardless of the arguer's personal behavior.

Why might the charge of hypocrisy be justified but not change the validity of an argument?

The charge of hypocrisy might be justified if the person's actions contradict their stated beliefs, but it does not change the validity of an argument because the truth of the argument depends on its logical structure and supporting evidence, not the person's consistency.

What is the schematic version of the 'Ad Hominem' fallacy presented in the script?

The schematic version involves person X giving an argument A for conclusion C, then discovering that X does not believe or act according to C, and incorrectly inferring that the argument A is bad or conclusion C is false.

How can one fix the logic flaw in the 'Ad Hominem' fallacy?

One can fix the logic flaw by not inferring the quality of the argument from the person's behavior or beliefs, but by evaluating the argument based on its logical structure and supporting evidence.

Are there any situations where charges of hypocrisy might be relevant to an argument?

Yes, charges of hypocrisy might be relevant when the issue at hand is about someone's character or the consistency of their views, but not when assessing the truth or validity of the argument itself.

How does the script illustrate the irrelevance of a person's personal behavior to the truth of their argument?

The script uses the example of someone arguing against factory farming while eating a hamburger to show that even if the person's actions are inconsistent with their argument, it does not affect the truth of the argument's claims about factory farming.