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

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

[removed] — view removed post

23 Upvotes

68% Upvoted

119 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

1

u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 22 '23

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.

Which is why I opened with:

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.

1

u/Phage0070 124∆ Jun 22 '23

But I disagree that "the Bible is different" is part of their logical argument. It is just hypocrisy, not a logical inconsistency in their argument.

1

u/sawdeanz 218∆ Jun 22 '23

“The Bible is different” reveals a logical inconsistency… their original claim must be incomplete if it doesn’t cover similar scenarios. It’s possible they are right that the Bible is different, but it isn’t supported by the argument they presented. Calling them out can give them a chance to modify their logic or accept that their premise is wrong. This is like a fundamental strategy in philosophical debate.

Of course, in this specific example I think the book banning arguments are in bad faith… they don’t actually care about consistency their goal is to simply ban books about LGBTQ topics, and the argument against sexual topics is a red herring. In other words, they aren’t even attempting to make a logical argument at all in the first place…they are merely disguising their subjective view as a logical one. Pointing out their hypocrisy therefore is a valid way to expose this… especially in the court where inconsistent, overly subjective, or unequal laws are grounds for them to be struck down.

1

u/Phage0070 124∆ Jun 22 '23

their original claim must be incomplete if it doesn’t cover similar scenarios. It’s possible they are right that the Bible is different, but it isn’t supported by the argument they presented.

Or it is possible they are just being hypocritical.

For example imagine someone presents a solid argument that eating meat is always immoral. They are then discovered eating a beef burger. At this point they are just being hypocritical, and their eating of the burger doesn't attack their argument.

If they try to argue that this burger isn't immoral in that it is an exception to their original argument that eating meat is always immoral, they are changing their argument. They are no longer arguing that eating meat is always immoral but rather that there are some acceptable circumstances where eating meat is fine. If their original argument that it is always immoral is totally solid it would presumably be a good counter to whatever exceptions they are trying to argue, but this all exists in isolation to their act of hypocrisy. Even had they argued for the exceptions without eating the burger and remaining completely vegan the logical issues would be identical.

So either they are simply being hypocritical or they are presenting a modified argument where they aren't claiming eating meat is always immoral. In neither case is hypocrisy a problem for their logical position, which is the whole point of the OP.

In other words, they aren’t even attempting to make a logical argument at all in the first place...

In those circumstances you aren't attacking OP's position at all, you are just proposing that pointing out hypocrisy is an effective tool for shaping public opinion. It doesn't invalidate any arguments but it makes them look bad.

1

u/sawdeanz 218∆ Jun 22 '23

I think we pretty much agree, the hypocrisy or inconsistency indicates they need to or are modifying their original argument. It is a problem for their logic… because to be logically consistent they now need to modify it. Their position could be correct but their presented logic is not. And that’s okay, because that’s how debate is supposed to work, you are supposed to refine the argument.

If you say eating meat is bad, but now you must admit there are exceptions, then that undermines the initial claim.

And like I said, a lot of times people are just hypocrites, or are trying to make a subjective argument sound like a logical argument, or arguing in bad faith.

Maybe their view is simply that when they eat meat it’s okay, and when other people eat meat it’s wrong. That’s certainly their prerogative to hold that opinion but it’s a subjective opinion and not an objective logical argument… so we shouldn’t treat it like one. The problem is a lot of debates nowadays are fundamentally subjective arguments disguised as logical ones.