Appeal to hypocrisy

[John V]

The classic example of the appeal to hypocrisy is:

A: I have evidence that smoking is bad for your health.
B: But I have evidence that you smoke yourself.

In this case, B’s argument is fallacious. That A smokes has no bearing on his evidence, which should be considered on its own merits.

Now consider:

A: You should not smoke. I do not smoke. If I smoked, I would have no basis to protest others' smoking.
B: But I have evidence that you smoke.

In this case, B’s argument is completely legitimate, assuming he does have evidence. When A said "If I smoked, I would have no basis to protest others' smoking," he made the question of whether he smokes a valid topic.

Thoughts?

[Welsh cake]

The classic example of the appeal to hypocrisy is:

A: I have evidence that smoking is bad for your health.
B: But I have evidence that you smoke yourself.

In this case, B’s argument is fallacious. That A smokes has no bearing on his evidence, which should be considered on its own merits.

No.

That's not the classical example at all. A isn't trying to hypocritically discredit B's position by asserting the B's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position that A is equally guilty of. A is simply making a factual statement to B. There's no criticism of B in your example. So whether or not A or B chooses to act upon this information doesn't make either of them a hypocrite.

This is how the form of the Tu quoque argument follows:

A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.

There you go.

Your example should read:

A: You should not smoke. Its very bad for your health.
B: But you're smoking.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or, if you prefer

A: Entity P disregards the rights of others
B: You disregard the rights of others.

.........................................................

[John V]

@ Welsh cake:

Fair enough, I was being brief and expecting people to read in the criticism of A, but I shouldn't have done that. How about:

B: You smoke yourself, so it must not be that bad.

[Kousbroek]

B: You smoke yourself, so it must not be that bad.

Smoking is good for you, especially during the holidays ...

[Angrboda]

Thoughts?

[Welsh cake]

@ Welsh cake:

Fair enough, I was being brief and expecting people to read in the criticism of A, but I shouldn't have done that. How about:

B: You smoke yourself, so it must not be that bad.

I think if you dropped the word "evidence" you would have been fine. You would have had an easier time demonstrating the hypocrisy of A, as A would have either been attacking B's position or another party's position.

Evidence and facts on the other hand can be self-contradictory, but not hypocritical by nature. Its just information and what you choose to do with it.

Then again, if we add another sentence:

A: I have evidence that smoking is bad for your health. Therefore you shouldn't smoke.
B: But you're smoking right now.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure John, that would work. Now lets consider that second half of yours.

A: You should not smoke. I do not smoke. If I smoked, I would have no basis to protest others' smoking.
B: But I have evidence that you smoke.

B still has no power to amend the bolded bit of A's statement (even assuming the claim was accurate). A may not have a basis to protest other's smoking personally (if, for example, they smoked, but that doesn't lead to or imply that no one does..or that there is a reason to or that you -should- smoke to begin with).

On-board so far?

Now, if A had said "You should not smoke -because- I do not smoke" you may be on to something. However, as it stands, the unbolded bit of A's statement is simply autobiographical, having no bearing on the bolded bit.

To take this further, if A had made the statement "You shouldn't because I don't" we might question why their actions should be considered as an authority. We might levy the charge "appeal to authority".

[Welsh cake]

Now, if A had said "You should not smoke -because- I do not smoke" you may be on to something. However, as it stands, the unbolded bit of A's statement is simply autobiographical, having no bearing on the bolded bit.

That's not so much hypocrisy as it is dishonesty, because its a blatant lie if B knows A smokes.

[John V]

Sure John, that would work. Now lets consider that second half of yours.

A: You should not smoke. I do not smoke. If I smoked, I would have no basis to protest others' smoking.
B: But I have evidence that you smoke.

B still has no power to amend the bolded bit of A's statement (even assuming the claim was accurate). A may not have a basis to protest other's smoking personally (if, for example, they smoked, but that doesn't lead to or imply that no one does..or that there is a reason to or that you -should- smoke to begin with).

OK, we agree that A does not have a basis to protest others' smoking.

If B is not making a claim regarding the bolded part because he believes it's unprovable opinion, then no appeal to hypocrisy fallacy has been committed.