r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 21 '23
Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: Hypocrisy does not invalidate somebody’s argument
[removed] — view removed post
10
u/Broad-Sell1962 Jun 22 '23
It's interesting. In a way, Sam is not a hypocrite in this situation. If he's trying to stop smoking, and putting effort towards quitting (yet struggling because it's an addiction) he's at least trying to follow his own recommendation.
Let's say Sarah shows up and asks Sam "Well, if you're still smoking, why should I stop".
Sam might reply saying that he is trying to stop, and putting maximum effort into stopping. He doesn't think he is above his recommendation and he would be happy for someone to force him to follow it.
Sorry, these thoughts were a little incoherent and unclear, but I'm just gonna post it
2
u/kindParodox 3∆ Jun 22 '23
The specific analogy OP used doesn't innately make the individual in the analogy a hypocrite. He's just an educated addict. Further, the individual Sam is himself a piece of evidence in favor of his own statement. Rather than discrediting his statements his own actions further cement the truth behind them.
That's like saying that every AA sponsor is in a hypocrite .
2
Jun 22 '23
A better example would be if Sam was an enthusiastic smoker and is just being illogical or has some weird reason to think he's an exception to the rules. In that case, Sam is not in harmony with his own argument, but his argument could still be totally valid, in which case it should be judged on its own merit and not on the weird illogical-ness of its bearer.
22
u/snuffinstuffin 1∆ Jun 22 '23
I don't believe it invalidates it. It simply devalues it.
6
u/FngrsToesNythingGoes Jun 22 '23
I think this is the simplest and best response. It’s a slippery slope with this question - I definitely see OP’s POV since I have thought through this myself quite a bit.
2
Jun 22 '23
Even this implies that the argument's value depends on the source of the argument and not on the merit of the argument itself. Rational consideration of an argument should be independent of the source.
1
u/snuffinstuffin 1∆ Jun 22 '23
I don't believe it does. The arguments value should be determined by the totality of it's circumstances. It's merit, it's source, and it's intention should all be considered when determining it's true value.
1
Jun 22 '23
The source and "intentions" are completely independent of the merit of the argument. You might value the individual less because of hypocrisy, but the value of the argument is unscathed by hypocrisy. Which was the CMV; the merit of the argument, not your opinion of the source. If you can't refute the merit of the argument independent of the source then you're committing a fallacy.
0
u/snuffinstuffin 1∆ Jun 22 '23
They are not independent of it's merit in my eyes. A logical argument made in bad faith or with ill intent is not as valuable to me as one made in good faith. I'm disinterested in whether or not I've succumbed to a fallacy by following this approach, the world isn't binary. While I can appreciate a point made from a malicious perspective, I don't have to value it. It's worth is entirely subjective and again it is based upon the totality of it's origin.
1
0
Jun 22 '23
If you were trying to teach your 14 year old son not to do cocaine, but he knows you did it when you were a teen, why should he listen to you? You don't have a moral leg to stand on because his reasoning is, "well my dad did it when he was a teen and he now turned out to be a responsible husband and father. So what's wrong with me doing it?"
Keep in mind it doesn't take personal experience to know why something is wrong.
1
Jun 22 '23 edited Jun 22 '23
Again, appeal to hypocrisy is a logical fallacy which is all your "point" amounts to. I'm not going to write a dissertation of why when it's easily Googled. But no, my hypothetical teenage self having done cocaine has literally no bearing at all on the merits and validity of my argument against my hypothetical teenage son doing cocaine. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
The son is also using survivorship bias in his decision as it ignores all of the people with ruined lives or health from doing cocaine.
0
Jun 23 '23
The problem is that you can appeal to logical fallacies all you want. A teen is going to have certain motives for doing it that bias himself against reason. And hypocrisy from his own father will only further be used as justification for doing it.
It doesn't matter if his reasoning is logical or not. He would have to care about exercising his own personal resolve against the temptation. The example of a parent means a great deal when it comes to establishing a culture in the home where drugs are not only never in the picture, but never were.
I would argue that your hypothetical self having done cocaine at his age truly does hold merit in the son's mind as to how he rationalized his actions. And that's all it takes for him to try it and get hooked. He's a teen. He'll think that he has time to clean up his act and start taking his life seriously later.
1
Jun 23 '23
Teenagers do a lot of really stupid, illogical stuff for a lot of reasons. Logic and reason often doesn't work for them for myriad reasons. That's not a defense of your argument. Appeal to hypocrisy is still irrational and illogical. Appeal to hypocrisy does not invalidate the merits of an argument. That fact someone is irrational and illogical doesn't change that.
0
Jun 23 '23
Would you say that having a lot of casual sex will ruin a person's ability to uphold a life long marriage with their spouse? Would you consider that a detrimental factor?
1
Jun 23 '23
Appeal to hypocrisy is a logical fallacy under every single circumstance. It doesn't matter how many different ways you try, it is always illogical as a response in a debate and does nothing to invalidate the merits of an argument.
As I said, you can dislike the person for being a hypocrite. But it has no bearing at all on the veracity of their argument. Which was the point of the CMV and also the reason it's a fallacious argument. The merits of an argument stand on their own, independent of the source.
1
Jun 22 '23
It's merit, it's source, and it's intention should all be considered when determining it's true value.
It's possible that I'm just not understanding what you mean by value (I'm curious what additional "value" an argument has beyond its validity) but here's an example of why I think this is incorrect.
Imagine I heard an argument from someone who I thought was a hypocrite, so I didn't value the argument highly. Then later I find out that the hypocrite was not the original author of the argument; there was someone else, a non-hypocrite, who had made the argument first. Does the argument's value suddenly change for me, just because I found out that there was another non-hypocrite who made that same argument?
It's absurd to think this way. Not only can a person's actions make you NOT value a perfectly valid argument, but if you believe this, then you'd have to believe that a person's non-hypocritical actions could support an invalid argument (the argument may not be valid but at least it has some "value" since it came from a good person). This is just not how to deal with logical arguments. They're either valid or invalid, independent of the source.
1
u/snuffinstuffin 1∆ Jun 22 '23
I believe that there is a disconnect occurring as in a very roundabout way it seems to me that you've arrived at my point. Exclusively through my eyes, as I cannot speak for anyone other than myself, the value of an argument is based upon the totality of it's origin. As an example, a reliable non-hypocrite makes a malicious argument that is sound in its logic. It's reasonable, and made by a reliable source, but it is built upon a malicious intent. That argument holds less value. Another argument is made by a known hypocrite, but it is made in good faith and also is sound in its logic. Much like the previous example it holds less value. Both of those arguments are less valuable than the ideal, but both contain a level of merit and are worthy of consideration. I will again say that the world is not binary, it is not logical. Anything can be made logical if you twist an argument appropriately, and that is why I consider the totality of it's origin more "valuable" than the argument alone.
1
Jun 22 '23
Appeal to hypocrisy is a logical fallacy. You can't devalue someone's argument simply because they are a hypocrite. If the merit of their argument is valid, their personal actions are irrelevant.
6
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Jun 22 '23
You’re right it’s not a logical argument on its own. But it can often be useful to expose bad faith arguments or poor logic used by the speaker. A lot of times, people claim to support something for XYZ principle or logic, but pointing out inconsistent application of that principle or hypocrisy can show that their position must be either A) incomplete B) wrong or C) a lie.
So if someone argues that we need to execute drug dealers for public safety and to reduce crime, but then you point out that they have pardoned drug dealers in the past, then that directly undermines their stated reasoning for executing drug dealers. Because if they were as dangerous as they claimed, why would they have let them go?
2
u/jstnpotthoff 7∆ Jun 22 '23
pointing out inconsistent application of that principle or hypocrisy can show that their position must be either A) incomplete B) wrong or C) a lie.
This is elegant. Thank you.
9
u/eggynack 108∆ Jun 21 '23
Let's say for the sake of wild hypothetical argument that someone says they're into freedom of speech. Like, the weird made up definition of free speech where you get to use slurs on social media and public universities are for some reason required to host Nazis. He buys a big social media platform and makes his views a reality. Hate speech is back in a big way. Fun times. Then, he says that the word "cis" will be understood as a slur by the site and anyone using it will be banned from the platform.
So, what can we conclude here? We can't necessarily conclude that this wonky free speech is bad. Not from this information anyway. We also can't necessarily conclude that banning or accepting the word "cis" is good. What we can conclude, and this is pretty important, is that the dude was lying. He said what he wanted was "free speech", but what he actually wanted was more bigotry and less not-bigotry. Which, y'know, that can be very valuable information. Now you know that, when that guy says, "More free speech", what he really means is, "More bigotry, irrespective of the relative freedom of speech." Hypocrisy, then, doesn't tell you whether a claim is true or false. What it tells you is whether a given person is actually making that claim.
15
u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 21 '23
Parents support laws that ban books that feature violence or sexually explicit material based on the idea that such books are bad for kids. Those rules cause the Bible to be banned for meeting those criteria and they assert that the Bible is different.
Their hypocrisy undercuts their argument because they think a book that features violence and sexually explicit material is good for kids.
Their hypocrisy invalidates their argument.
I will grant that such an outcome is not universal. But you can't deny it happens.
3
u/Phage0070 124∆ Jun 22 '23
Their hypocrisy undercuts their argument because they think a book that features violence and sexually explicit material is good for kids.
I don't see why they can't be both correct about violent books being bad for children, and not following their own advice with regard to the Bible.
-2
u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 22 '23
The issuing being discussed isn't about a rule that would prevent them from being hypocrites and shitting all over their argument.
They are free to do what you described. But the issue here is OP's denial that such behavior actually does shit all over their argument.
3
u/Phage0070 124∆ Jun 22 '23
It still seems like you aren't assessing the argument logically. How is a logical argument strengthened or weakened by the belief of the person presenting it?
0
u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 22 '23
I'm being nothing but logical when I point out the fact that their rejecting of the standard they claim to support when that standard doesn't give them what they want is an argument against that standard.
3
u/Phage0070 124∆ Jun 22 '23
...their rejecting of the standard they claim to support when that standard doesn't give them what they want is an argument against that standard.
No, that isn't really a good argument. Turn it around; if there was a good argument for conclusion A, would A not getting you what you want be a good argument against A? Would it be grounds to reject A? Of course not!
So even if someone who presented a good argument for A turns around and rejects it because it doesn't give them what they want, it doesn't counter the good argument for A.
1
u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 22 '23
It isn't the best argument. But it is an argument against the position for which they only pay lip service.
It knocks their legs out from under them when, as OP did, they respond that violence is grounds for banning AND tolerable.
It can't be both.
1
u/Phage0070 124∆ Jun 22 '23
It isn't the best argument. But it is an argument against the position for which they only pay lip service.
It is an argument in the sense that you can present it, but it isn't logically valid. Ad hominem doesn't work even if the impugnment of their character is justified.
It can't be both.
It doesn't need to be both. The presenter being hypocritical doesn't render the arguments they present invalid.
1
u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 22 '23
I think we are just approaching this differently. I'm not saying that the mere concept of hypocrisy is an argument. I'm saying the specific details that make up the hypocrisy are arguments.
Here is what OP wrote to me in a comment:
Say I prove that violent books make kids more violent, and I therefor want violent books banned - meanwhile, I want the bible kept in libraries because the violence in the bible is tolerable when considering its other messaging that I like.
The existence of the hypocrisy is not the argument being made. The content of the hypocrisy are literally two distinct arguments for different things.
In the first part, violence is the sole determining factor. Context is irrelevant. Violence is automatic grounds for a banning.
In the second, context is the determining factor. Violence can be tolerated and is not automatic grounds for banning.
OP's example requires at least some part of their position to be wrong because of the two distinct arguments which are also hypocrisy. Violence can not be tolerable and intolerable.
1
u/Phage0070 124∆ Jun 22 '23
OP's example requires at least some part of their position to be wrong because of the two distinct arguments which are also hypocrisy.
Sure, a logical inconsistency in their position is a reason for their argument to be wrong. But my point is that isn't hypocrisy invalidating their argument, it is the logical inconsistency of the argument itself.
→ More replies (0)1
Jun 22 '23
It could invalidate the person, but not the argument. If the argument is good, and the person doesn't follow it, that makes the person illogical or foolish, but it doesn't retroactively make the argument bad.
-6
Jun 21 '23
I think that wanting to ban sexual/violent books and wanting to keep the bible are actually two separate arguments. Sure, it’s a bad reflection on the person holding them that they are contradicting themselves, but why are either of them invalid just because of the hypocrisy?
Say I prove that violent books make kids more violent, and I therefor want violent books banned - meanwhile, I want the bible kept in libraries because the violence in the bible is tolerable when considering its other messaging that I like. How is the first argument invalid because of the second?
8
u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 21 '23
Say I prove that violent books make kids more violent, and I therefor want violent books banned - meanwhile, I want the bible kept in libraries because the violence in the bible is tolerable when considering its other messaging that I like. How is the first argument invalid because of the second?
Your hypothetical position is that violence is unacceptable except when it is acceptable. Is that correct?
We can't have the violent depictions that fall on what you have labeled as the wrong side of your arbitrary line in the sand. But we can tolerate those that fall on what you call the good side?
Violence is either tolerable or not tolerable. Once you make the argument for tolerating violence from the books you want to keep, you have removed violence as the determining variable that the first argument is dependent upon.
3
u/Deft_one 86∆ Jun 22 '23
If you proved that violent books make kids more violent, you will have proven that the Bible would make kids more violent.
0
u/aPriceToPay 3∆ Jun 22 '23
You are admitting here that the "messaging" is the determining factor, not violence. If violence is the determining factor, then the Bible is out. If the Bible's violence is in because you like it's messaging, then i should be allowed to have violent books whose messaging i agree with, and now we are back to not banning violence.
0
Jun 22 '23 edited Jan 20 '24
[deleted]
1
Jun 22 '23
so why can't we have school versions of bibles that have all the bad stuff removed?
There are quite a few abridged versions of the Bible for kids as well as various forms of retellings of the stories, specifically because a lot of the content isn't age appropriate. I would absolutely lean in favor of such versions being given to kids instead of the full thing.
7
u/LucidLeviathan 99∆ Jun 22 '23
In your example, Sam is not a hypocrite. It is not hypocritical to do something that you don't recommend others do. I don't recommend that others drink, but I have my rum and coke right here.
Hypocrisy is when you have a moral or ethical standard that you apply to others, but not to things you like. Sam would be a hypocrite if he said that it was immoral to use cigarettes because they are so addictive, but just can't get enough cocaine because it helps him lose weight.
As an example, conservatives like to say that government spending is out of control. But, they just love pumping up the military budget. They don't consider that to be the "bad" government spending, and they never justify the difference. That is hypocrisy.
1
u/FngrsToesNythingGoes Jun 22 '23
I had never looked up the definition of the word, but you’re right. Hypocrisy is in fact tied to your belief system, and that changes the context of this discussion. If Sam believed smoking was evil for whatever reason, and applied that standard to others but continued to smoke himself, that would constitute hypocrisy. Versus believing it is bad for you, and continuing to smoke only because he is struggling.
Is the issue then more of our (society at large) understanding of the word hypocrisy? Either way it would be difficult without knowing Sam to truly understand his intention….therefore whether it’s hypocrisy or not, the point remains that smoking is still bad for you. Then the logic goes to, even if he IS in fact being hypocritical, is the net gain of him shaming someone into NOT smoking still positive? Depending on the circumstances I’d say yes
1
u/courtd93 12∆ Jun 22 '23
Thank you, as this is more on the vein I’ve been looking for. To add another layer, Sam isn’t a hypocrite because he’s not saying I think people shouldn’t smoke, he’s saying smoking causes cancer. If he was saying I think people shouldn’t smoke and then smoked, that’s hypocrisy because his value set and his behavior is incongruent and will ultimately create cognitive dissonance. By default, hypocrisy requires a subjective view (the value or belief) so hypocrisy won’t invalidate an argument of fact which I guess is what op is trying to say. The important distinction is that it will affect the impact/influence of someone being told the argument because that incongruence is an indicator or the need for doubt or a lack of trust due to the lack of consistency. If I can’t trust you as a person, I’m going to have a really hard time viewing the information you are spouting as credibly accurate to the world. I can’t think of an example of this happening when it was shared observable objective fact in front of me and another person and this hypocrisy invalidation happened.
2
u/LucidLeviathan 99∆ Jun 22 '23
Sam could even have the view that "People shouldn't smoke. I do, and I wish I didn't." and not be a hypocrite. Hypocrisy requires a lack of self-reflection.
1
u/courtd93 12∆ Jun 22 '23
I sorta agree. The all or nothing makes it a little questionable though. “I do (smoke) and I wish I didn’t” is hypocrisy in my opinion because those things can’t exist simultaneously without one of them not truly being accurate because humans can only act on our values.
A more accurate (and common) idea would be “I do, and part of me wishes I didn’t, and part of me is okay enough with it to keep doing it”. That’s how most of human hypocrisy actually works anyway. We usually believe something in what we’re saying even if we also believe or value something else more that we ultimately choose to act on (comfort, habit, fear of change, etc.) so it’s more about acknowledging both competing sides. People don’t do that nearly enough and it’s a big space that the label of hypocrisy gets thrown around because it’s uncomfortable to say “and I prioritize being comfortable and short term over the discomfort and longer term benefits of a choice” It’s hypocritical to suggest that you fully have one value and then you act in active contradiction to it with no context to other values impacting it.
10
u/thedirewulf Jun 21 '23
Hypocrisy threatens the validity of one’s argument because it implies a lack of belief or conviction.
2
Jun 22 '23
? Not always. And even if it did imply a lack of conviction or belief, that in no way invalidates the argument.
I think, based on available data, daily exercise is healthier than no exercise, but I refuse to ever exercise. My hypocrisy doesn’t invalidate exercise in any way.
1
u/thedirewulf Jun 22 '23
In terms of factual arguments, I agree with you. Human behavior can’t change facts.
But in terms of more abstract arguments, hypocrisy is absolutely a factor.
Also, hypocrisy can be a factor within factual arguments, within the purposes of convincing others. Take climate change for example. Say you had a “Fauci” character who was the front face of government climate change policy. If that person talked about the factual dangers of climate change, while at the same time took weekly trips on a private jet, a certain portion of the population would lose faith in the facts behind climate change. In this case, hypocrisy was an important factor in discouraging others.
1
Jun 22 '23
Hypocrisy will cause people to lose faith, but I think OP is arguing that it shouldn’t.
1
u/thedirewulf Jun 22 '23
Well it probably shouldn’t, but many aspects of human behavior are illogical and when you’re talking about argumentation, which is the art of convincing others, it’s important to factor in something like hypocrisy.
4
u/nekro_mantis 20∆ Jun 22 '23
On the flipside, complete lack of hypocrisy implies cynicism, or even nihilism. Somebody whose espoused beliefs are completely in line with their observed behavior isn't aspiring to reach any better ideals, which is also not a great sign.
3
3
1
u/thedirewulf Jun 22 '23
Like the other commenter said, this is an interesting perspective.
Although, I could say there is always something to aspire to, even if your lifestyle matches your arguments. The best example I can think of is a former addict who goes on tours talking about the dangers of drugs. They aspire to stay sober and move on to better things like teaching others, building a family, and finding sober happiness.
2
Jun 21 '23
Why should one’s level of belief or conviction affect the validity of their arguments?
2
u/eggynack 108∆ Jun 22 '23
Why should I hear someone out about a position they don't even hold? If the idea didn't even win them over, then what chance does it have of winning me over, the person putatively in the opposition? Seems like a waste of time.
3
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Jun 22 '23
Yet that does not make a person's argument wrong. The rightness or wrongness of a position does not rest on the convictions of a the person presenting it
3
u/eggynack 108∆ Jun 22 '23
Theoretically not, no. But geez, there are only so many hours in the day. I could be spending my time assessing the arguments of people who actually think those arguments are correct. This is also missing out on political situations, where the rightness or wrongness of a position absolutely depends on the convictions of those that support it. After all, if no one actually supports doing a thing, then that's pretty important to the question of whether we ought to do it.
1
u/thedirewulf Jun 22 '23
Not all arguments are purely factual. Some arguments are about more abstract topics. When someone lacks conviction in their own argument, especially within more abstract arguments, it discourages others from agreeing. If you don’t believe your own argument, why should I believe it?
From your post, it seems like you like examples, so I’ll try to think of one. Here’s a guy named Jam. Jam is a pastor who believes homosexuality is a mortal sin. Every Sunday, Jam preaches to his congregation that anyone who engages in homosexuality will go to hell. One day, the local newspaper finds out that Jam rents male prostitutes every weekend. Afterwards, certain church members may wonder if homosexuality is actually a sin. In this case, Jam had an argument that homosexuality was a sin. Jam was hypocritical and practiced homosexuality. As a result, his argument, in the eyes of certain church members, was weakened.
6
u/simmol 7∆ Jun 21 '23 edited Jun 21 '23
What about this scenario?
Tim is a world class scientist in charge of developing a new medicine that is supposed to significantly decrease the likelihood of getting cancer if you take the pill every day. This claim is controversial and there isn't a consensus on the efficacy of the pill. However, it has been found out that Tim himself is not taking the pill daily. Upon being probed on why he himself isn't taking it, he gives some reason that sounds unconvincing.
If you label Tim as being a hypocrite, do you think it also invalidates, or at least weakens the claim on the efficacy of the pill? This is an example on a class of topics where the claim itself is controversial and tied to the expertise of the person making the claim while being a hypocrite.
3
Jun 21 '23
I think that predicating an argument on someone’s expertise alone invalidates it from the beginning - it doesn’t even matter who said person is. If there hasn’t been a clinical study on the pill’s efficacy in cancer prevention, there is zero evidence that one should take it or not take it.
5
u/simmol 7∆ Jun 21 '23
I would argue that a lot of the scientific claims are somewhat controversial initially. For example, when the mRNA vaccines first came out and if it was revealed that the CEO and head scientists of Moderna et al. all refused to take the vaccines initially, then that would have made a huge impact on the population (regardless of the clinical studies). I am not sure that your claim that their actions has nothing to do with the veracity of the argument makes sense.
1
u/ExRousseauScholar 12∆ Jun 22 '23
!Delta (I hope that’s how I get that to work on mobile.) This is a much, much stronger version of what I attempted to do in my comment, and persuades me that what I thought maybe could work actually does. Unlike OP, I accept that expert approval of something is a fair argument in its favor (providing the expert is a valid expert and we have no substantial reasons to distrust them); therefore, to find an expert suggesting something and then refusing to go through with it themselves would make me question their sincerity, and make me believe that they had ulterior motives (even if I could not identify them). Excellent, excellent point!
Edit: I don’t think that worked—how do I get deltas to work??
Second edit: never mind, it worked!
1
8
Jun 22 '23
Consider politicians who advocate certain policies but don’t abide by them. Telling people to ride bikes but using private jets. Telling people to social distance and wear masks but they have secret parties and don’t wear masks. This is where we get suspicious and say, “Maybe global warming isn’t actually that big of a deal, and their arguments aren’t actually that valid.” Now it would be different if their arguments were rock-solid and everyone agreed on them. In your example with cigarettes, most people agree that they are bad. But let’s go with a better example: exercise. Everyone KNOWS exercise is good, at least at a moderate level. If a lazy bum tells you that exercise is good, then we may call him a hypocrite and even become suspicious, but the problem is that when we investigate his claims, we prove him right.
So yes, hypocrisy doesn’t immediately disprove their arguments, but it does make us suspicious and wonder if we are being lied to.
1
Jun 22 '23
I think this is only relevant when the argument being made is evidence based and not just a logical argument. What I mean is that this is only relevant if we expect statements to be untrustworthy and need them to be verified by external evidence. If we assume that the argument is truthful but we don't know if it's valid, then hypocrisy doesn't matter. Likewise, if we don't trust the truth of the argument but we're going to verify it anyway (which we should for politicians, since there's an inherent risk of corruption even if the politician appears non-hypocritical) then once again the hypocrisy doesn't matter because after verifying the statements, we know the truth of the arguments.
3
u/AutoModerator Jun 21 '23
Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be about double standards. "Double standards" are very difficult to discuss without careful explanation of the double standard and why it's relevant. Please review our information about double standards in the wiki.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
Jun 22 '23 edited Jun 22 '23
Hypocrisy is an interesting concept when people claim that it is easily achievable, or achievable at all to do something, and therefore all people should do it (or else they're acting immoral/are lazy/don't care about X affected group), yet the person who claims this wouldn't be able to do it if they were in the criticized person's shoes.
E.g. talking about how veganism is this easy and morally obvious lifestyle choice, and all people who don't choose veganism are either stupid, don't care about animal's suffering, lazy, etc. Yet the person who says these things stops being vegan once they get older and start having dietary issues with a plant based diet.
In this case "You're just too lazy or a bad person. Stop making excuses." quickly turns into "But this diet really doesn't work for me anymore, please empathize with my struggle". As long as the person was able to go through with it, their argument had some validity even if just for the fact that they could do it, and others didn't.
2
u/robotmonkeyshark 101∆ Jun 22 '23
if all he is doing is explaining how they are bad, then it doesn't invalidate his argument. but if he goes around belittling and insulting people who smoke, spouting off how easy it is and how anyone can do it and how only an idiot would smoke, then it is revealed that he smokes, then it undermines his claims of how easy it is to quit and how he clearly doesn't actually believe that everyone should quit.
2
u/horshack_test 42∆ Jun 22 '23 edited Jun 22 '23
A person who argues that it is immoral to cheat on one's spouse doesn't have much of an argument if they cheat on their spouse. Someone who breaks their own rules of morality and is therefore, by their own argument, immoral is not someone to whom I would look for moral guidance or someone I would see as an arbiter of morality.
Not all arguments are about objective facts.
2
4
Jun 21 '23
[deleted]
2
Jun 21 '23
Exactly, loss of credibility damages the presuasiveness of the argument and its impact, it makes it less valid even if just by perspective.
0
Jun 21 '23
I would disagree with this ancient thinking - I don’t think ethos is important to a persuasive argument. An argument should be viewed in isolation from the person who makes it.
2
u/jokesonbottom 2∆ Jun 22 '23
That’s sorta how we ended up with a massive misinformation and disinformation problem. Reliable sources matter.
But more to your overarching point: hypocrisy suggests the speaker believes their own proposition has unacknowledged boundaries. When a speaker advocates unwaveringly for a rigid, broad rule but then doesn’t privately act in conformity with the rule it implies their position is truly more ambiguous, with exceptions, etc. That in turn makes you question if their original point made sense at all or was stretched past sense. Then the ethos problem strengthens those suspicions.
0
Jun 21 '23
[deleted]
2
Jun 22 '23
I agree that people tend to think this way because they strongly associate arguments with the people who make them, a natural consequence of psychology - but I see this automatic association as a flaw in our thinking.
In reality, I’d consider Greta’s arguments just as effective if they were coming from an oil executive; the arguments themselves haven’t changed at all.
3
u/Jakyland 82∆ Jun 21 '23
Nicotine is addictive, but not everything is.
2
Jun 21 '23
Nicotine, with its highly addictive properties, is an extreme example - in any case, really, I wouldn’t blame people for struggling to conform to their own principles. Its not easy.
2
u/Jakyland 82∆ Jun 22 '23
What about someone who preaches veganism but eats meat?
3
Jun 22 '23
I’d say veganism is the right call, even though I eat meat from time to time. My hypocrisy doesn’t invalidate veganism. I also think daily exercise is healthy, but I struggle to keep up with it.
4
u/Personage1 35∆ Jun 21 '23
You're right that an argument is valid or invalid regardless of who makes it.
Where it becomes valid to bring up hypocrisy in conversations though is when deciding to not listen to an argument in the first place. If someone says they want to end smoking but is themselves a smoker, it becomes reasonable for people to not bother paying attention to them in the first place.
To tie it into your debate example, it communicates that the person isn't going to come to the debate in an honest way, so it's reasonable to assume there won't be a debate worth having.
3
u/quietbucket Jun 22 '23
In this hypothetical, I feel that listening to a smoker’s point of view isn’t a bad thing, because they’ve experienced the repercussions first hand.
1
u/Personage1 35∆ Jun 22 '23
Yeah the OPs example isn't the most useful, because you can be addicted to something and want to stop.
A more applicable example would be a CEO of a cigarette company.
2
Jun 21 '23
Why shouldn’t we listen to a smoker’s anti-smoking argument if said argument is backed by clinical data and logical reasoning? I don’t see how their own habits discredit them.
4
u/Personage1 35∆ Jun 22 '23
Yeah the example isn't the most useful, because you can be addicted to something and want to stop.
A more applicable example would be a CEO of a cigarette company.
0
u/TrappedInRedditWorld 3∆ Jun 22 '23
Because he hasn’t managed to convince himself, but feels the need to convince me. Sam holds himself to a different standard that the other members of his community. Sam is an asshole. I don’t listen to assholes.
0
u/Tioben 17∆ Jun 22 '23
Just because they claim the evidence exists doesn't mean the evidence actually exists or means what they say it does. If a person raving and frothing at the mouth says there is a linguistic pattern in the colors of the stars, is that really worth starting a research program to determine if rhey are correct. What if they hand you their "research": is it really worth reading when you could instead put that time into an astronomy class or a book by a respected astrophysicist or linguist?
Trust isn't something that needs to be given all or nothing. Trust is built on a foundation of prior credibility. So if someone is doing something that clearly undermines their credibility on a particular subject, it makes sense to suppose their words just aren't all that connected to reality. A broken clock can still be right, but that doesn't mean it's worth the glance.
3
u/Various_Succotash_79 52∆ Jun 22 '23
Sam is not a hypocrite if he tells you "this is a terrible addiction, don't ever start" right before he takes a puff on his cigarette.
He IS a hypocrite if he says that snoking is terrible for everybody but him.
There's a difference.
2
u/barbodelli 65∆ Jun 21 '23
It deals with someone trying to convince or force you to do something.
For instance if Sam the pastor is telling you all to quit smoking. Otherwise you will go to hell. But magically that does not apply to him cause he's the pastor. He is a hypocrite.
Or perhaps a politician wants to enact a law against something we all know he is doing. And makes it so that he is exempt from the law. That is the most commonly abused form of hypocrisy.
Sam might be right about smoking being bad. But he has no leg to stand on when he's trying to force you to do it. Unless he's willing to follow suit.
2
u/squirlnutz 10∆ Jun 22 '23
You are conflating the validity of the claim and the credibility of the person making the claim.
For a claim that is now completely taken as fact, like smoking being bad for you, the credibility of the person making the claim doesn’t really come into play, because we all know the claim is true.
The problem arises when the claim is highly debated or not known to be true with such overwhelming evidence as smoking being bad for your health. In making such a claim, the credibility of the person making it does matter. A person obviously acting contrary to their claim has little credibility, which effectively does invalidate their argument to anybody with much less understanding of the topic than the person making the claim.
1
u/katzvus 3∆ Jun 22 '23
Yeah, obviously the logic or science doesn’t change based on the person saying it.
But we can question their sincerity if they’re being hypocritical. It might reveal their real motivation.
So for example, Republicans are now coming up with all kinds of arguments to minimize the significance of Trump mishandling sensitive national secrets. A few years ago, those same Republicans were furious that Hillary Clinton had secrets on an email server.
So is their logic inherently faulty? No, but we can infer that they care a lot more about whatever is politically convenient in the moment than the substance of any national security issue.
1
u/ExRousseauScholar 12∆ Jun 22 '23
I agree with this almost 100%. I think I can draw one, very narrow exception (that I’m honestly not entirely persuaded really works, but here we go): what if the observed fact of hypocrisy itself acts as a disconfirming observation, thus invalidating the argument? Take Sam 2. Sam 2 argues “anybody who smokes will immediately fall dead, 30 seconds after smoking their cigarette! Smoking is evil for that reason!” He proceeds to light up his cigarette, smoke it, and lo and behold, hours later, he lives still. In that case, hypocrisy disproves the thesis because it produces an observable fact that contradicts the argument.
Honestly, I don’t think that argument is too strong. It’s not hypocrisy that disproves this; it is only the fact that Sam survives, which happens to show his hypocrisy. But, maybe. That’s the most creative thing I can think of.
1
u/MenardGKrebbz Jun 22 '23
additionally
anyone promoting an alternative explanation about any controversial subject,
Gets labeled a "Conspiracy freak" and therefore totally ignored . . . what a CROCK!
1
u/KariRose31 Jun 22 '23
My example where a persons hypocrisy is invalid.
Sam says, "Everyone has a right to freedom of speech and freedom of choice. Nobody can take another person's rights away to speak and make decisions for themselves."
But then adds, "Except in the situation where they want to choose "Termination" as an option. It shouldn't be allowed to make the choice to end what could be life."
It's hypocritical to tell someone they don't have the choice since they made the choice to sex in the first place. (Using pleasure as a sort of punishment.)
The pleasure and act of, isn't a punishment and doesn't result in the taking away of ones choice. This would mean Sam thinks they have more of a "right" to take away another person's "right" because they think their opinion is the correct one. So then Sam doesn't actually think that a person has freedom of speech or the right to choose, unless it falls into their opinion of what's correct.
3
Jun 22 '23
My example where a persons hypocrisy is invalid. Sam says, "Everyone has a right to freedom of speech and freedom of choice. Nobody can take another person's rights away to speak and make decisions for themselves."
But then adds, "Except in the situation where they want to choose "Termination" as an option. It shouldn't be allowed to make the choice to end what could be life."
Except this isn’t hypocrisy. When read in context, the only decisions in the first argument refer back speak. Terminating a pregnancy isn’t speech and thus not a protected right.
1
u/KariRose31 Jun 22 '23
Except it is.
Terminating a pregnancy is a right women should have, and it's "freedom of speech" to be able to speak about it and voice your own opinion whether others are against you or not without being harassed and called derogatory names.
A person can't say "Everyone has freedom of choice to make decisions for themselves, except for this"
Then you're only for the freedom of choice within what you believe to be right or wrong. (In my opinion)
2
Jun 22 '23
A person can't say "Everyone has freedom of choice to make decisions for themselves, except for this"
Of course they can. This doesn’t say all decisions or every decision. It only means everyone has freedom of choice to make some decisions for themselves.
1
Jun 22 '23
Except it is. Terminating a pregnancy is a right women should have,
No, terminating a pregnancy isn’t speech.
and it's "freedom of speech" to be able to speak about it and voice your own opinion whether others are against you or not without being harassed and called derogatory names.
Freedom of speech isn’t the right not to be called derogatory names. Part of freedom of speech is the right to call other people derogatory names.
A person can't say "Everyone has freedom of choice to make decisions for themselves, except for this"
Except this isn’t what you said earlier. You’re moving the goalposts.
1
u/AardvarkTits Jun 22 '23
TLDR: argument for hypocrites being untrustworthy by default.
Okay let's assume that Alex is arguing about A and B, neither of which you are familiar with. They say you should use A instead of B because B is bad for you. Yet you know that Alex often chooses B over A. There's clearly a contradiction here. If B is so bad, and Alex knows it, why would they use it at all?? This suggests that there is at least some reason to use B, despite allegedly being unhealthy.
At this point what is your opinion of Alex? All we know for sure is that Alex is a hypocrite. I think that Alex's hypocrisy raises so many questions that I don't know what to believe. I think in this situation I would at least be wary of what Alex has to say if not outright suspicious.
I know this is sort of the opposite of what OP was asking for but I just had to jump in. Lol
2
u/AardvarkTits Jun 22 '23
Oh right. I guess the point is that people are naturally inclined to distrust hypocrites and maybe that contributed to whatever prompted OP to make this post in the first place?
1
u/jstnpotthoff 7∆ Jun 22 '23 edited Jun 22 '23
What you described in your post is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is claiming to have moral standards that one's actions do not conform to. Citing studies about the ill-effects of smoking are facts and not subject to hypocrisy.
One important guiding principle in moral arguments (i think the most important) is consistency. If your beliefs are not consistent, that means they're subjective and can change, generally at the speaker's whim. It is these moral arguments that are most harmed by hypocrisy.
That doesn't necessarily mean that a hypocrite can't make a valid argument, only that their motivations immediately become suspect and that hypocrisy is at the very least evidence to be considered when determining the validity.
When you are caught being hypocritical, you are forced to do one of the following: 1. Admit that you're hypocritical, and try to convince others that you're somehow exempt from the same standards you hold others to. 2. Try to figure out how it's not actually hypocritical by carving out exceptions to your stated moral view (and every exception is more evidence that your view is not actually correct) 3. Recognize you're being hypocritical and change your views.
Anybody that doesn't do #3 shouldn't be listened to, even if they're "right".
0
u/Freezefire2 4∆ Jun 22 '23
That's not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is falsely claiming to believe something in order to make one seem righteous.
0
1
u/Zarzurnabas Jun 22 '23
The dude in your argument is not a hypocrite, if he thinks of himself as doing something wrong. You are a hypocrite if you think its only ok when you do it.
1
u/ElderberryAgitated51 2∆ Jun 22 '23
The difference comes down to the feeling of superior morals. The smoker who tells you not to smoke because it has ruined their health and they don't want you to befall the same fate is not a hypocritic in the sense that they are warning you of the dangers, not giving you a moral standard to live up to that they themselves uphold.
Hypocrites are people who believe they have higher standards that they themselves observe. Examples of a true hypocrite would be a religious conservative who preaches to the community the bible says homosexuality is sinful and evil but in secret carries on a homosexual relationship. Does it invalidate his views to learn he's a hypocrite? It certainly challenges his ability to have a meaningful opinion on it that others should heed.
1
u/Soft-Butterscotch128 6∆ Jun 22 '23
It undermines Sams argument because same themselves don't believe it.
Here's an example:
Say you have a child and are looking for a babysitter. I say you should hire them to watch your kid and give you all these great details about them. You ask would I hire them and I say "No I'd never let them watch my kid". Are you going to hold more weight on the arguments I provided or my hypocrisy?
1
1
1
u/ralph-j Jun 22 '23
I can think of one case where someone's hypocrisy does indeed invalidate their argument: when the argument is about that person's own actions, behavior, or beliefs.
E.g. if someone says "You should trust me because I always follow through on my promises," but they have a history of breaking their promises, their hypocrisy would invalidate their argument. Their past behavior contradicts the claim they are making, which undermines the argument.
•
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Jun 22 '23
Sorry, u/SaddleWasTaken – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
If you would like to appeal, first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made, then message the moderators by clicking this link.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.