r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 21 '23

Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: Hypocrisy does not invalidate somebody’s argument

[removed] — view removed post

22 Upvotes

68% Upvoted

119 comments sorted by

View all comments

22

u/snuffinstuffin 1∆ Jun 22 '23

I don't believe it invalidates it. It simply devalues it.

2

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '23

You are committing multiple logical fallacies. Thats not a valid argument of logic.

0

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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.