Help identifying fallacy
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Hello Everyone!
I am struggling to identify the fallacy, though I am pretty sure there is one, and was hoping to get a bit of help.
There are a list of 20 odd rules and two people they apply to. Person A has followed the rules, while Person B has not. At some point one of the rules is broken by person A, and person B says "if you break rule 4, then you are saying all the rules are invalid and so I don't need to follow any of them."
What is the fallacy being used by Person B?
Thank you for any help with identifying this.
Comments on Question
Answers
5Non Sequitur.
Just because a rule is broken doesn't mean it is invalid, since observance of a rule does not make a comment on its existence or logical congruence. Remember, people may follow invalid rules out of respect, or violate them out of curiosity. These are not assessments of validity, but reasons for obeying/disobeying laws.
In addition, two wrongs do not a right make. One transgression being justified by a previous transgression simply results in two transgressions of a rule for no cogent reason. The first violation was not reasonable either, so it cannot be used as a basis for justifying a second one.
The stamp has "ad hominem" but I regard it as simply "tu quoque" since the claimant merely seeks to claim equivalent behavior, as if one's error negates his criticism. It's an excuse, not a reason.
That would be a non sequitur; breaking a rule is a violation not a invalidation, and it has no bearing on the other rules at all. Why would Person A breaking it be any different from Person B breaking it? Even if it was devised by Person A that has nothing to do with how to deal with violations.
Among other fallacies noted by others, I would call this a tu quoque fallacy. It is a whataboutism - you didn't follow the rules, so it makes it OK for me to not follow the rules.
This seems like a Double Standard Fallacy, or a Special Pleading Fallacy. When Person B broke rule 4, that did not mean all the rules were invalidated. Person B is using person A's mistake to justify his mistakes and get out of following the rules. If person B blames person A, then it might also be a Scapegoating Fallacy. And it's also a Non Sequitur Fallacy, because the conclusion does not follow the premise.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
Person B is making a straw man argument accusing Person A of the Nirvana fallacy.
Person A has made no such claim that all rules can be ignored because they have chosen to break a rule.