Tu Quoque Arguments and the Siginificance of Hypocrisy

  title={Tu Quoque Arguments and the Siginificance of Hypocrisy},
  author={Scott F Aikin},
  journal={Informal Logic},
  • S. Aikin
  • Published 5 June 2008
  • Philosophy
  • Informal Logic
Though textbook tu quoque arguments are fallacies of relevance, many versions of arguments from hypocrisy are indirectly relevant to the issue. Some arguments from hypocrisy are challenges to the authority of a speaker on the basis of either her sincerity or competency regarding the issue. Other arguments from hypocrisy purport to be evidence of the impracticability of the opponent’s proposals. Further, some versions of hypocrisy charges from impracticability are open to a counter that I will… 

Tu quoque arguments, subjunctive inconsistency, and questions of relevance

Tu quoque arguments regard inconsistencies in some speaker's performance. Most tu quoque arguments depend on actual inconsistencies. However, there are forms of tu quoque arguments that key, instead,

Hypocrisy and Moral Authority

Hypocrites invite moral opprobrium, and charges of hypocrisy are a significant and widespread feature of our moral lives. Yet it remains unclear what hypocrites have in common, or what is

Whataboutisms and Inconsistency

Despite being very common in both public and private argumentation, accusations of selective application of general premises, also known as “whataboutisms”, have been mostly overlooked in

Trust based on bias: Cognitive constraints on source-related fallacies

This paper advances a cognitive account of the rhetorical effectiveness of fallacious arguments and takes the example of source-related fallacies. Drawing on cognitive psychology and evolutionary

Prevention of Hypocritical Behavior and Its Perspective in Islamic Education

Hypocritical behavior needs to be watched out for because it is symptomatic in the community, especially now with access to global relationships without any boundaries of place and time where it is

Fallacies in Reasoning, Part 2

Commentary On Enthymemes and Fallacy Gaps: Commentary on Paglieri



Who is Afraid of Epistemology’s Regress Problem?

What follows is a taxonomy of arguments that regresses of inferential justification are vicious. They fall out into four general classes: (A) conceptual arguments from incompleteness, (B) conceptual

Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse.

The “argumentative predicament” is that in every argumentative move strategic manoeuvring has to take place in order to keep the balance between aiming for effectiveness and maintaining

The Place of Emotion in Argument

Walton, in this book, applies an unconventional method of analyzing fallacies to the study of appeals to emotion. Following good sense and in opposition to views one can find in some textbooks in

Logic and Mr. Limbaugh : a dittohead's guide to fallacious reasoning

Professor Perkins takes 50 examples of logical reasoning from Rush's statements, identifies the logical arguments, and points out fallacies in Logic and Mr. Limbaugh.

A practical study of argument

1. What Is an Argument? (And What Is Not?). 2. Pinning Down Argument Structure. 3. Looking at Language. 4. When Is an Argument a Good One? 5. Premises: What to Accept and Why. 6. Working on

`Ought' Conversationally Implies `Can'

The principle that 'ought' implies 'can' is often taken for granted in discussions of determinism, moral dilemmas, and other areas of practical reasoning. Yet the principle is seldom discussed

A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach

1. Introduction 2. The realm of argumentation studies 3. A model of a critical discussion 4. Relevance 5. Analysis as reconstruction 6. Rules for a critical discussion 7. Fallacies 8. A code of

Ought does not imply can

L'A. demontre la contradiction du principe selon lequel devoir implique pouvoir, par l'argument epistemique et par l'argument de l'analyticite fondes sur la verite et la synthetique du determinisme.

A concise introduction to logic

Part I: INFORMAL LOGIC. 1. Basic Concepts. Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions. Exercise. Recognizing Arguments. Exercise. Deduction and Induction. Exercise. Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength,

Do as I say not as I do.

  • Zhen Zhang
  • Education
    CA: a cancer journal for clinicians
  • 2002