Question

...
mchasewalker

Tu Quoque

I know that calling someone out for their hypocrisy is a poor argument for someone's claim. What does someone do when they are dealing with narcissistic abuse, especially since Narcissists are described by psychologists as the biggest hypocrites? Are what the psychologist doing in calling out hypocrisy different that the Tu Quoque fallacy? 

asked on Wednesday, Dec 02, 2020 09:23:49 PM by mchasewalker

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

Do you have a specific example? Granted, I am a social psychologist not a clinical one, but I have never heard of a universal claim that narcissists being described as "the biggest hypocrites." I haven't seen any data that narcissism is scientifically correlated with hypocrisy, so I would check that assumption. The goal of the psychologist is not to win an argument - or even present the most logical one; it is to help the client/patient. Calling out hypocrisy is not problematic in itself; it is problematic, as you noted, when it is used as an argument against someone's claim. Again, an example might help here.

posted on Thursday, Dec 03, 2020 07:54:47 AM
...
0
mchasewalker writes:

I have to admit that Tu Quoque arguments are among my favorite pet peeves of all the other ad hominem fallacies. Mainly because I strongly suspect they are rooted in deeper psychological reactions (projection and deflection) and cognitive biases (agency detection). When confronted with an impulsive tu quoque response I immediately suspect the opponent is immature and naive rather than narcissistic or deceitful. They are stuck in a "us v them" binary memoriter rather than a disciplined method of logical ratiocination. 

I call it the Pee Wee Herman argument, " I know you are, but what am I?"

 

posted on Thursday, Dec 03, 2020 12:50:30 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers