3 ms·

It's a bad argument, it's a tu quoque logical fallacy. You can be a serial killer and admit that murdering innocents is immoral. The identity and the actions

It's a bad argument, it's a tu quoque logical fallacy. You can be a serial killer and admit that murdering innocents is immoral. The identity and the actions of the person making the argument have no bearing on the validity of the argument itself, it should be judged purely on its own merits. Is that statement that "murdering innocents is immoral" actually correct or not, regardless of who makes the statement? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

alex_sf 4y ago
I addressed this in lighter terms below, but I don't think this is a logical fallacy (in context). To carry on your example, a serial killer that believes murdering innocents is immoral should also consider themselves immoral. They have the option to not kill, and continue to do it. This is very different from the 'holier than thou' perspective taken by those who condescendingly dismiss arguments that they are contributing to things, by their own free actions, that they claim are evil.
- virgildotcodes 4y ago
  I mean, it is a logical fallacy, in that it is an attempt to dismiss the validity of the argument through a variation of ad hominem. Again, whether or not the person making the argument is a hypocrite, a monster, or a talking dolphin has no bearing on the validity of their argument. The argument's validity rests purely on its own merits, regardless of who espouses or expresses it. I can be a smoker and admit that smoking is absolutely horrible for you. Just because I am a smoker doesn't mean that the statement that smoking is horrible for you is incorrect. I think we're just talking about two fundamentally different things. 1) Whether or not people are hypocrites (and yes, they definitely are). 2) Whether or not that hypocrisy invalidates their arguments (and no, it has no bearing on the validity of their argument).

alex_sf 4y ago

I addressed this in lighter terms below, but I don't think this is a logical fallacy (in context). To carry on your example, a serial killer that believes murdering innocents is immoral should also consider themselves immoral. They have the option to not kill, and continue to do it. This is very different from the 'holier than thou' perspective taken by those who condescendingly dismiss arguments that they are contributing to things, by their own free actions, that they claim are evil.

virgildotcodes 4y ago
I mean, it is a logical fallacy, in that it is an attempt to dismiss the validity of the argument through a variation of ad hominem. Again, whether or not the person making the argument is a hypocrite, a monster, or a talking dolphin has no bearing on the validity of their argument. The argument's validity rests purely on its own merits, regardless of who espouses or expresses it. I can be a smoker and admit that smoking is absolutely horrible for you. Just because I am a smoker doesn't mean that the statement that smoking is horrible for you is incorrect. I think we're just talking about two fundamentally different things. 1) Whether or not people are hypocrites (and yes, they definitely are). 2) Whether or not that hypocrisy invalidates their arguments (and no, it has no bearing on the validity of their argument).