I might have asked this question before on these forums.
Is there a name for this situation I'm describing (and is it a fallacy).
X commits action that harms Y.
Y responds to X's action.
X considers Y's response immoral, unethical, whatever.
Therefore X's original behavior that harmed Y is justified, and continuing those actions against Y is justified.
A variation of it would also be
X commits action that harms Y.
Y responds to X's action.
X considers Y's response immoral, unethical, whatever.
Therefore X is justified in taking another action that harms Y is response (because X objected to Y's response.
In the first case, I think that that argument is completely fallacious. You can not use the response to an action to justify the original action.
The second scenario could hold up in some cases. If say X commited an action that harmed Y, and Y attempted to kill X in response, then X would be justified in calling the cops and getting Y arrested, but X could still not say that his original actions against Y were justified because Y attempted to kill him.
Is there a name for this fallacy?
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
To illustrate it, think of the classic ad hominem: two children explaining a fight. "Well, he hit me!" "You hit me first!" "But you hit me!" The point is that they're using the other's behavior to redirect attention from the morality of their own behavior.Feil wrote:Ad hominem tu quoque fits the bill.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
-
Boyish-Tigerlilly
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 3225
- Joined: 2004-05-22 04:47pm
- Location: New Jersey (Why not Hawaii)
- Contact:
It seems like an obvious non sequitor to me because the conclusion doens't follow from the premise.
That someone does something to you because you do something to him first, even if what he does to you in response doesn't logically mean that your original response was ok.
It's like saying. I shot you in the head, but then your mother punched me in the face. Therefore, shooting you in the head was ok.
It doesn't make sense.
That someone does something to you because you do something to him first, even if what he does to you in response doesn't logically mean that your original response was ok.
It's like saying. I shot you in the head, but then your mother punched me in the face. Therefore, shooting you in the head was ok.
It doesn't make sense.
-
Boyish-Tigerlilly
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 3225
- Joined: 2004-05-22 04:47pm
- Location: New Jersey (Why not Hawaii)
- Contact:
Can someone please fix the above, if they get a chance. I flubbed up the second paragraph.
I meant to say: "That someone does something to you because you do something to him first, even if what he does to you in response isn't justified (or perhaps is), it doesn't mean logically that your original response was ok.
I meant to say: "That someone does something to you because you do something to him first, even if what he does to you in response isn't justified (or perhaps is), it doesn't mean logically that your original response was ok.
Seems that a lot of people conduct themselves this way.
In my personal experience. It's someone doing something improper or unethical (and that someone being oblivious to the fact that that behavior is wrong) me responding to them in a negative manner (usually me yelling at them, etc), and that person in using that as a justification for the original behavior (the reasoning being, LordMJ is an asshole he cussed at me, he yelled at me, waaaaah!!!) continuing the behavior, and going further taking steps to prevent me from confronting them about it again in the future.
In my personal experience. It's someone doing something improper or unethical (and that someone being oblivious to the fact that that behavior is wrong) me responding to them in a negative manner (usually me yelling at them, etc), and that person in using that as a justification for the original behavior (the reasoning being, LordMJ is an asshole he cussed at me, he yelled at me, waaaaah!!!) continuing the behavior, and going further taking steps to prevent me from confronting them about it again in the future.