Is there a name for this fallacy?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Since when is recovering stolen property theft,and morally wrong?

He didn't say "recovering stolen property" in his hypothetical. He said stealing.

 

[Cavemonster]

He didn't say "recovering stolen property" in his hypothetical. He said stealing.

Cash being fungible, there isn't a functional difference.

(Whew, I'm glad I didn't need to say that sentence out loud)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

By some moral systems it would.
Remember the legend of Robin Hood, the hero?

The fact that some people would agree or disagree with the girl's conclusion doesn't change the fact that her conclusion doesn't logically follow from her premises. That is, her argument is fallacious regardless of whether her conclusion is true or false.

Yes, people have different moral standards, and there are any number of different (sometimes conflicting) moral conventions. But we can examine the logic of moral arguments and determine whether or not the reasoning is valid.

But let's unpack the Robin Hood example a little. Robin Hood is not saying that his wrong action (stealing from the rich) justifies the first wrong action (the rich people exploiting the poor). In fact, I think he would still condemn the wrong actions of the rich people despite his attempts at dispensing justice. And surely the rich people aren't claiming their actions are right because of the possibility of Robin Hood robbing them. (I assume they were doing whatever wrong actions they were doing even before Robin Hood came along.)

This is not like your question. The girl is saying that the present act of discrimination is not wrong because there will be other acts of discrimination.

 

[Sophronius]

Joethejuggler pretty much solved this one as far as I can see, but to try and clarify the issue:

The statement "It's my opinion that two wrongs make a right" is not a logical fallacy, since you're just expressing an opinion which cannot be false no matter how nonsensical.

The statement: "The fact that wrong X is being commited automatically makes wrong Y null and void" is a fallacy, because it simply does not follow.

You can interpret the girl's statement in both ways, but it's completely irrelevant. It is clear that what Cavemonster is talking about is the fallacy presented in the second example. As such, people using this fallacy to back up their moral framework are wrong to do so, irregardless of the fact that a moral framework is a subjective thing.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Cash being fungible, there isn't a functional difference.

(Whew, I'm glad I didn't need to say that sentence out loud)

But again, the second act of stealing doesn't make the first act of stealing morally right. That doesn't logically follow. It is a logical fallacy to assert that it does. The second act does not justify the first act.

In your playground conversation, that is what the girl asserts--that the present injustice is justified by subsequent injustices. This is the two wrongs make a right fallacy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The statement "It's my opinion that two wrongs make a right" is not a logical fallacy, since you're just expressing an opinion which cannot be false no matter how nonsensical.

The statement: "The fact that wrong X is being commited automatically makes wrong Y null and void" is a fallacy, because it simply does not follow.

You can interpret the girl's statement in both ways, but it's completely irrelevant. It is clear that what Cavemonster is talking about is the fallacy presented in the second example.

Yes. Even if the girl had said, "It's my opinion that. . . ", when CM asks "Is there a name for this fallacy?" he is clearly not talking about the framing statement that says what someone's opinion is. He's clearly asking about the logical fallacy in the content of the "that. . " part of the statement.

So if we cast the playground conversation as any kind of logical discussion/argument or debate, the point in question is "Is the current act of punishing all the boys morally right or just?" Her argument is that yes it is just because there will be other cases where all the girls will be punished. This is the two wrongs make a right fallacy.

CM is correct in pointing out that the girl's argument also depends on an unsubstantiated premise (that there will be cases where all the girls will be punished). This point is moot, though, since the argument is fallacious whether or not that premise is true.

 

[Uncayimmy]

So if we cast the playground conversation as any kind of logical discussion/argument or debate, the point in question is "Is the current act of punishing all the boys morally right or just?" Her argument is that yes it is just because there will be other cases where all the girls will be punished. This is the two wrongs make a right fallacy.

If we cast the conversation as, "Boys are treated unfairly," then a response of, "Yes, but so are girls at times, so don't act like it's just about the boys because it all evens out," then there's no fallacy. Saying "it evens out" does not have to mean "it's okay." It could correctly be used to refute an assertion that one gender is always treated unfairly.

 

[Sophronius]

It still doesn't matter. That's not what cavemonster is talking about.

What the girl said was an example to illustrate a point. You can argue all day long about how you could interpret what the girl said in a different way than how cavemonster understood it, but it doesn't change anything because the discussion is not about that specific event but about the logical fallacy that cavemonster described in the OP by means of the example.

 

[Uncayimmy]

It still doesn't matter. That's not what cavemonster is talking about.

What the girl said was an example to illustrate a point. You can argue all day long about how you could interpret what the girl said in a different way than how cavemonster understood it, but it doesn't change anything because the discussion is not about that specific event but about the logical fallacy that cavemonster described in the OP by means of the example.

I don't believe the example illustrates what Cavemonster claimed. This calls into question whether we "see it in politics, issues of gender and race,, everywhere. And to me, it remains one of the most frustrating lapses in logic." After all, if this one example isn't accurate, then what are we really discussing?

But, hey, I'll play along. What he states is not a fallacy in logic. To wit:
You can't criticize person/group X for acting this way because person/group Y would do the same thing or worse (even though they haven't).

That's merely an opinion over which reasonable people will disagree. Consider this simple analogy:
You: I think James Randi is wrong for pulling down a $195,000 salary from the JREF.

Me: Well, if you ran an organization this size, you'd be taking the same salary.

Where is the actual flaw in logic? Did I say that it's right or wrong for Mr. Randi to take that salary? No, I did not. Did I say it would be right or wrong for you to take that kind of salary? No, I did not.

All I'm really saying is, "I find your protestations an implication of your own moral superiority but in fact should you be in the same circumstances you would make them same choices. Therefore, I preemptively judge your comments hypocritical."

Taking a slightly different approach, "What Mr. Randi is earning is typical for non-profits the size of the JREF. Anybody in his position would get that salary. You may find it wrong for anybody in that position to earn that much, but it's the typical practice."

In the end, it's a ****** example, and there's been a lot of stretching and bending trying weave logical fallacies where none may exist.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If we cast the conversation as, "Boys are treated unfairly," then a response of, "Yes, but so are girls at times, so don't act like it's just about the boys because it all evens out," then there's no fallacy. Saying "it evens out" does not have to mean "it's okay." It could correctly be used to refute an assertion that one gender is always treated unfairly.

But if you read the conversation that way, then CM's question, "Is there a name for this fallacy?" makes no sense at all. If there's no argument being offered, then there can be no fallacy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But, hey, I'll play along. What he states is not a fallacy in logic. To wit:
You can't criticize person/group X for acting this way because person/group Y would do the same thing or worse (even though they haven't).

That's merely an opinion over which reasonable people will disagree.

Not so. It's stated that the reason you can't criticize person/group X is because of something else. That is, it's being presented as an argument and not just as a mere opinion. There is presented a causal relationship between the conclusion/opinion and another proposition (premise).

Consider this simple analogy:
You: I think James Randi is wrong for pulling down a $195,000 salary from the JREF.

Me: Well, if you ran an organization this size, you'd be taking the same salary.

Where is the actual flaw in logic?

If you're implying that it's right for Randi to draw a salary from JREF because "you" would do the same, then you're committing the tu quoque fallacy.

You might legitimately think it's perfectly fine for Randi to draw that salary from JREF, but it's not logical to claim that it's right because of what someone else would do.

ETA: To elaborate, it could be true that it's right for Randi to draw that salary and right for "you" to draw it. It could be wrong for both. It could be right for one and wrong for the other. All those are logically possible, so it's irrelevant what "you" would do.

Again, the general class of fallacy that tu quoque and the two wrongs make a right fallacy is that of irrelevant arguments. What "you" would do in this case or what another teacher would do in the playground case are both irrelevant to the question of whether the act being considered is right.

That there is implied a causal or logical connection (rather than merely the expression of an opinion) is obvious since you could easily express the opinion that the action being considered is right without bringing up what another person would do. In the playground conversation, I think it's clear that the girl thinks it would be wrong except for the fact (as CM notes, the unsupported "fact") that another teacher would do the same wrong act against the other group. That the only reason she thinks the present action is right (or at least not wrong) is that another person would do a similar thing, which is, of course, logically irrelevant.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

FWIW, if the girl were just expressing an opinion (and not trying to make a logical connection between the present action and some other action), and you wanted CM's question to make sense, you could say it's begging the question. If the girl had just asserted that it's OK to punish all the boys (just expressing her opinion and not proferring any other logical connection), and you're considering this a debate on that question, she is begging the question.

Technically, begging the question isn't really a fallacy. That is, there is not an invalid argument. There's just nothing offered to support the conclusion.

 

[Uncayimmy]

But if you read the conversation that way, then CM's question, "Is there a name for this fallacy?" makes no sense at all. If there's no argument being offered, then there can be no fallacy.

And thus the problem would lie with Cavemonster. On those board I've seen all sorts of accusations of logical fallacies that simply were not logical fallacies. It's a logical fallacy to assume that "what is this one called?" is actually referring to a logical fallacy.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Not so. It's stated that the reason you can't criticize person/group X is because of something else. That is, it's being presented as an argument and not just as a mere opinion. There is presented a causal relationship between the conclusion/opinion and another proposition (premise).

Sorry, I used poor phrasing and you misconstrued my intended meaning. I'm going to skip this.

If you're implying that it's right for Randi to draw a salary from JREF because "you" would do the same, then you're committing the tu quoque fallacy.

This is what I mean by people throwing about cries of logical fallacies whenever they see one that resembles one in structure or what they think it means.

There is no objective wrong or right about Mr. Randi's salary. There is only opinion based on some homegrown set of morals. By saying, "You would draw the same salary," I could simply be arguing that were you to find yourself in the same position, you would realize how much work it takes, how valuable your expertise is to the organization, and that the salary in question is right smack dab in the middle of what officers in similar sized non-profits earn. Therefore, you would conclude that such a salary is reasonable.

That's not a logical fallacy. It's an opinion about how somebody might judge a situation from another perspective. Big difference.

You might legitimately think it's perfectly fine for Randi to draw that salary from JREF, but it's not logical to claim that it's right because of what someone else would do.

Sometimes it most certainly is. Part of "judging" the salary of someone like Mr. Randi is to look at what is usual and customary. Courts of law use this test all the time. If I sue you and you argue to the judge that $150/hour for my services was not fair, what I have to establish to the judge is that I and other people who do what I do regularly get $150/hr for it. It is very clearly a case of, "Well, other people get that much all the time, so it's okay."

ETA: To elaborate, it could be true that it's right for Randi to draw that salary and right for "you" to draw it. It could be wrong for both. It could be right for one and wrong for the other. All those are logically possible, so it's irrelevant what "you" would do.

It depends entirely on what is intended by pointing out the person's potential actions.

Again, the general class of fallacy that tu quoque and the two wrongs make a right fallacy is that of irrelevant arguments. What "you" would do in this case or what another teacher would do in the playground case are both irrelevant to the question of whether the act being considered is right.

Tu quoque is basically saying that a person's negative judgment of an act to be not valid because that person did that very same something. You have to be very careful with calling something tu quoque. Let me give you some examples where people throw it out there when it's not appropriate:

Me: I think John Doe is a sick tool for reading Hustler.
You: But you also look at Hustler, so you are just as sick!
Me: Tu quoque! Tu quoque!

Only it's not. That's just saying both parties are sick tools for looking at porn. Nothing false about that.

Me: I think John Doe is a sick tool for reading Hustler.
You: But you look at Playboy.
Me: Tu quoque! Tu quoque!

Only it's not necessarily so. Perhap it's pointing out an inconsistency, and there are a number of implications that need to be clarified. For example, if I have a strong anti-porn stance, the assumption is that I never look at it. Therefore, if I look at something, it's not porn. You happen to consider Playboy to be in the same league as Hustler. Therefore, we should debate the division between Playboy and Hustler in regards to what is or is not porn. It's just a drift in the conversation, not a fallacy.

On the other hand if you threw out the line about Playboy to distract me from discussing John's fitness for choir boy, that's a tu quoque. Whether I'm the biggest pervert in the world or not does not affect whether John is a pervert or not.

Here's a more realistic example:

Me: Your party is bad because the incumbents take money from big corporations.
You: So did your party when they were in power.
Me: Tu quoque! Tu quoque!

Not necessarily so. The implication in saying that your party is bad is that my party is not. You could simply be telling me that both parties are bad, which could be true if you believe taking money like that is bad. Another possibility is that you're simply pointing out that taking money like that is standard practice and neither party is bad.

It becomes a tu quoque if you are arguing that your party should not be convicted of illegally taking money simply because my party got away with it.

That there is implied a causal or logical connection (rather than merely the expression of an opinion) is obvious since you could easily express the opinion that the action being considered is right without bringing up what another person would do. In the playground conversation, I think it's clear that the girl thinks it would be wrong except for the fact (as CM notes, the unsupported "fact") that another teacher would do the same wrong act against the other group. That the only reason she thinks the present action is right (or at least not wrong) is that another person would do a similar thing, which is, of course, logically irrelevant.

I don't think what you think is "clear" at all. Therefore, before any cries of "logical fallacy" are thrown out, discussion must ensue. Unfortunately, I see far too often that this doesn't happen. People then latch on to the "logically fallacy" like pit bulls and keep the conversation from going someplace meaningful.

It's really quite easy for me to see the argument as, "Boys are singled out unfairly on the playground" with the rebuttal being, "Yeh, but sometimes girls are too, so it's not really a policy against boys so much as a teachers favoring one group or another at different times. We are all treated unfairly at an even rate." That is not a logical fallacy.

It only becomes a fallacy when the argument is explicitly that treating people unfairly based on gender is "okay" so long as you make sure everybody gets treated unfairly by gender at an even rate. That's not a justification, but it does have nuances such as it makes it hard for somebody to use gender discrimination as an excuse for not keeping up with their opposite gender peers when in fact both genders get the shaft at an even rate.

 

[Sophronius]

Alright, let me try this again.

The issue that Cavemonster raised was, as I understood it: People who think they can nullify a moral wrong by pointing out another equivalent but opposite possible future moral wrong, and what kind of fallacy this constitutes.

This was then illustrated by an example of a girl who said something that was interpreted by cavemonster to be this exact thing.

You then argue that cavemonster, despite him being present in that situation and thus having infinitely more knowledge of what actually happened than you do (you only know what cavemonster told you), could have misunderstood what the girl was saying.

This makes no sense. You have no way of knowing how the girl meant it, all you can do is speculate. Yes, it is POSSIBLE that she meant it in a way that makes logical sense. But that doesn't matter. Cavemonster was there, you were not. Moreover, the example was only an illustration of the overall problem that cavemonster wanted to talk about. You are completely sidetracked by what is effectively no more than an analogy.


Edit: To try and get this on track, I should point out that there are but two things that are relevant here:

1) Does the phenomenon that cavemonster talked about exist? Do people try to nullify one wrong by pointing out a similar wrong done to an opposite party?
2) If so, is this a fallacy? If it is a fallacy, what is it called?

It seems obvious to me that the answer to 1) is a sound yes. People do this. It also seems obvious to me that this logically unsound and that this could reasonably be called "the two wrongs make a right fallacy".

Do you disagree with either of these points?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Alright, let me try this again.

The issue that Cavemonster raised was, as I understood it: People who think they can nullify a moral wrong by pointing out another equivalent but opposite possible future moral wrong, and what kind of fallacy this constitutes.

Well, that's not what he said, now is it?

"You can't criticize person/group X for acting this way because person/group Y would do the same thing or worse (even though they haven't)."

There is a difference between can't criticize and nullify a moral wrong. So, your argument fails right there.

Beyond that, his example really doesn't match up at all to what he claims. He then goes even further to say that his new fallacy includes within it a tu quoque, and I don't think his example necessarily includes one at all. Saying you "can't criticize" is not in itself a tu quoque, which I think I explained fairly well.

So, pardon *********** me for actually trying to expand the conversation. And thanks for proving my point that logical fallacies are handed out like candy and once out there, defended so strongly that further conversation is stifled.

 

[Sophronius]

It seems clear to me that Cavemonster is protesting against the notion that two wrongs can "even out", assuming that they are done to opposite parties. In other words, the notion that you can argue against something being wrong by pointing out another wrong (possible future opposite wrong, etc). I refer to this claim as: The notion that you can nulify (counter) a claim against one moral wrong by pointing out another.

To me it seems clear that when cavemonster says "You can't criticize X for doing Y" he means "You can't blame X for doing Y" (ie, X has done no wrong) rather than intending it to mean "X is wrong to have done Y, but you shouldn't criticize him/her on this", but if cavemonster corrects me on this I'll be glad to admit that I misinterpreted him.

So, pardon *********** me for actually trying to expand the conversation. And thanks for proving my point that logical fallacies are handed out like candy and once out there, defended so strongly that further conversation is stifled.

This really isn't helping the conversation at all.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is what I mean by people throwing about cries of logical fallacies whenever they see one that resembles one in structure or what they think it means.

It's not that resembles the structure, it's that it actually makes a causal relationship between two things where there is none.

There is no objective wrong or right about Mr. Randi's salary.

I agree. And there's no burden of argumentation on him to justify his salary.

However, in the exchange you hypothesized, the respondent ("me") made an argument that was logically flawed. It was beyond the expression of an opinion (or, in rhetorical terms, just asserting a conclusion) because it expressed a causal relationship between the rightness of Randi's drawing a salary and what "you" would do in a similar situation. The two have no logical connection. This is a logical fallacy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

On those board I've seen all sorts of accusations of logical fallacies that simply were not logical fallacies. It's a logical fallacy to assume that "what is this one called?" is actually referring to a logical fallacy.

The question is asking us to regard the exchange as a logical debate. What's wrong with doing that? I prefaced my remarks in this thread by pointing out that on a playground there are other issues involved (such that I would have no problem accepting what the teacher did), but then continued to respond as CM requested: by regarding the exchange as an argument and identifying the fallacy.

I've seen this meme on these boards too: "Ad hominem fallacy: You're wrong because you're fat; Not an ad hom fallacy: You're wrong, and you're fat."

But this isn't correct. These are informal fallacies of the group "red herring" or irrelevant arguments. Anything you put in the place where an argument should be that is not relevant is this type of fallacy. If there is no logical connection between the thing you offer where one would expect support for a conclusion and the conclusion, it is irrelevant. And irrelevant arguments are a type of informal fallacy.

As I mentioned, if this were the bare assertion of an opinion, there would be no mention of the unrelated other actions (what a male teacher would do in the playground case, or what "you" would do in your hypothetical about Randi's salary).

Even then, if someone asked me to consider that bare assertion of an opinion as an argument and say what's wrong with it, I would be fine in identifying it as "begging the question" which, as I mentioned, is not actually a fallacy in that it doesn't create an invalid argument. It just lacks any logical structure and is merely the assertion of the conclusion.

 

[Uncayimmy]

However, in the exchange you hypothesized, the respondent ("me") made an argument that was logically flawed. It was beyond the expression of an opinion (or, in rhetorical terms, just asserting a conclusion) because it expressed a causal relationship between the rightness of Randi's drawing a salary and what "you" would do in a similar situation. The two have no logical connection. This is a logical fallacy.

What's with this obsession over pure logic? You're pretending like it's some simple mathematical proof intended to take the argument from start to finish and not be subject to rebuttal. First, if there's no logical connection between two comments, then it just might be an aside. I like gravy fries. That's not a logical fallacy.

Your claim that there is no logical connection between the statements in question is precisely that kind of close-minded thinking that I find so annoying. The two are definitely connected. Both are talking about Mr. Randi's salary. Both are referring to how that person's views on Mr. Randi's salary.

What you seem to be trying to say is that there are premises being made and a conclusion that doesn't follow from those premises. The reality is, no such conclusion was made. You are inventing a conclusion that wasn't stated and crying "logical fallacy" instead of looking for other possible meanings and exploring the idea further.

The proper response in that exchange is, "Why do you say that?" As I demonstrated, there are several ways the conversation could go, most of which do not lead to logical fallacies unless you stretch "logical fallacy" to some absurd definition to include everything that doesn't follow an If...then kind of form.

In my year and half here I've seen more logically fallacies called out by name than I saw in 15+ years on Usenet. Quite a few of the cries have been inaccurate and detrimental to the conversation because the accused is not given a chance to explain what they mean. I find them stifling.