What-aboutery(independent.co.uk)
independent.co.uk
What-aboutery
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-to-spot-a-lame-lame-argument-1667373.html
7 comments
It's a bit more than that, because it is an attempt to accuse the other party of hypocrisy.
One of the comments claims it is called a Tuo Quoque (You also) Fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
Independent of the Dubai issue, I think he is right about the "what-about x" argument. I have seen it many times before. Like in religious debates, an atheist might hear the argument, "so if you don't believe in God, where do you get your morals from?" as though that has anything to do with whether God exists.
I'm fearful of sounding like a redditroll, but Hitchens handles this particular topic well. He asks people to name a single moral act believers can do that nonbelievers cannot do. Then, when no one has an answer, he asks a corollary; name a single act of evil done entirely in god's name.
That sounds like he stole it from Peter Weinberg:
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -- Steven Weinberg
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -- Steven Weinberg
That attitude makes me uneasy. Atheists are tempted to dismiss religion and sit back, confident in our superior rationality. But what we should do is try to learn even more from theist errors. The errors are not just limited to the obvious (to us) errors like faith in the supernatural. There's also obedience to authority. The Milgram Experiments show that plenty of good people will do evil in certain circumstances.
I can't imagine either of them or the originators of this idea, but I prefer the way Hitchens put it.
Peter or Steven -- make up your mind! :P
It's Steven.
It's Steven.
I don't think Hitchens handles the topic well, at least not as you present it.
In the first comparison we compare two groups, we find both with the ability to do moral acts. Next we compare the two groups again, but this time we are surprised when we find both groups are capable of non-moral acts. Also, we jump from a simple comparison of believers and non-believers to the use of god's name.
The point just doesn't say much more than, "people are capable of good and evil". A religious person would only become troubled that evil people are misappropriating their belief system to back their evil acts. i.e. Hitchens point will not faze a religious person.
A better response would be to show in the positive that a similar morality to Christianity can be built from a few well reasoned assumptions. This would address the GP's wish to show that morality is not dependent on a religious system. It is important to remember, from a religious persons perspective morality is defined by God. Responding with annoyance gets one nothing and shows that a person may be vulnerable to the same shortsightedness.
In the first comparison we compare two groups, we find both with the ability to do moral acts. Next we compare the two groups again, but this time we are surprised when we find both groups are capable of non-moral acts. Also, we jump from a simple comparison of believers and non-believers to the use of god's name.
The point just doesn't say much more than, "people are capable of good and evil". A religious person would only become troubled that evil people are misappropriating their belief system to back their evil acts. i.e. Hitchens point will not faze a religious person.
A better response would be to show in the positive that a similar morality to Christianity can be built from a few well reasoned assumptions. This would address the GP's wish to show that morality is not dependent on a religious system. It is important to remember, from a religious persons perspective morality is defined by God. Responding with annoyance gets one nothing and shows that a person may be vulnerable to the same shortsightedness.
I suppose it depends where in the conversation you are. Sometimes you have to start from scratch with people who believe religion has a monopoly on morality. If the conversation doesn't require such basics, then by all means jump forward.
>"so if you don't believe in God, where do you get your morals from?"
Yeah, I guess so, but that was implied by the OP.
Yeah, I guess so, but that was implied by the OP.
"The denial of an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results ultimately in the denial of evil itself...
The one who raises the question against God in effect plays God while denying He exists. Now one may wonder: why do you actually need a moral law giver if you have a moral law? The answer is because the questioner and the issue he or she questions always involve the essential value of a person. You can never talk of morality in abstraction. Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question. In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral law giver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner. So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into personhood, which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the moral law itself is valued. And that person can only be God.
Our inability to alter what is actual frustrates our grandiose delusions of being sovereign over everything. Yet t he truth is we cannot escape the existential rub by running from a moral law. Objective moral values exist only if God exists. Is it all right, for example, to mutilate babies for entertainment? Every reasonable person will say “no.” We know that objective moral values do exist. Therefore, God must exist. Examining those premises and their validity presents a very strong argument. "
RZIM.org
The one who raises the question against God in effect plays God while denying He exists. Now one may wonder: why do you actually need a moral law giver if you have a moral law? The answer is because the questioner and the issue he or she questions always involve the essential value of a person. You can never talk of morality in abstraction. Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question. In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral law giver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner. So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into personhood, which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the moral law itself is valued. And that person can only be God.
Our inability to alter what is actual frustrates our grandiose delusions of being sovereign over everything. Yet t he truth is we cannot escape the existential rub by running from a moral law. Objective moral values exist only if God exists. Is it all right, for example, to mutilate babies for entertainment? Every reasonable person will say “no.” We know that objective moral values do exist. Therefore, God must exist. Examining those premises and their validity presents a very strong argument. "
RZIM.org
I don't buy that argument. Basic morals is just a minimum requirement for a society. We need to work together as a community, so for it to work there has to be a set of rules. You can see the same with packs of lions or other types of animals.
Anti-social elements will not survive long on their own. People/animals who work together has a better chance of survival. Those who can't work with others, are therefore removed (gradually) from the gene pool.
Anyway, it is very dangerous to base morals on religion. Only religion can make someone say "It's wrong to kill people, unless they believe in another religion"... What is the moral basis for that? If you removed religion from politics, they would not be able to say that.
Anti-social elements will not survive long on their own. People/animals who work together has a better chance of survival. Those who can't work with others, are therefore removed (gradually) from the gene pool.
Anyway, it is very dangerous to base morals on religion. Only religion can make someone say "It's wrong to kill people, unless they believe in another religion"... What is the moral basis for that? If you removed religion from politics, they would not be able to say that.
The double think is quite sad/fun. I've heard religious people smarter than me mix the argument "X is true" with "it is good to believe X is true".
Then are they really smarter than you?
There is some old saw that intelligent people believe so many strange things because they are smart enough to convince themselves...
I've seen that even in non-ideological areas, for people with "too large" verbal talent, which believed their own bullshit. But that might pass with age.
I've seen that even in non-ideological areas, for people with "too large" verbal talent, which believed their own bullshit. But that might pass with age.
People here are not used to hearing open criticism of their country or their rulers. The "Dark Side of Dubai" article really didn't spare anyone's feelings, to say the least.
That kind of disrespect beckons retaliation of some kind. Since Mr. Hari is safely out of reach in the UK, the only response is to openly dis the UK - even if it means dredging up stories from WWII.
That kind of disrespect beckons retaliation of some kind. Since Mr. Hari is safely out of reach in the UK, the only response is to openly dis the UK - even if it means dredging up stories from WWII.
Why does it beckon retaliation instead of correction? If it is because he is correct then retaliation would seem like something only the immature or stupid would engage in. More enlightened souls would either point out their already standing agreement or would learn.
By the way, I did not read this 'Dark Side of Dubai' article you mention and I have no idea therefore what was said in it.
By the way, I did not read this 'Dark Side of Dubai' article you mention and I have no idea therefore what was said in it.
> That kind of disrespect beckons retaliation of some kind.
Not for everyone it doesn't. It's highly dependent on culture, and it's personal too. When 37 signals criticized Get Satisfaction, Get Satisfaction replied with grace, and addressed the points raised by 37 Signals. Of course it wasn't perfect, but it certainly didn't fall in the camp of retaliation.
Not for everyone it doesn't. It's highly dependent on culture, and it's personal too. When 37 signals criticized Get Satisfaction, Get Satisfaction replied with grace, and addressed the points raised by 37 Signals. Of course it wasn't perfect, but it certainly didn't fall in the camp of retaliation.
Yes, it's very cultural. I have observed first-hand how people here go ballistic at the slightest perceived slight.
This spirit of vengefulness has gotten worse as the city has mushroomed with foreigners who now outnumber locals 20 to 1, making them a small minority in their own city. Their culture and way of life are under attack, from their own leaders' ambitions.
This spirit of vengefulness has gotten worse as the city has mushroomed with foreigners who now outnumber locals 20 to 1, making them a small minority in their own city. Their culture and way of life are under attack, from their own leaders' ambitions.
I disagree with the author. Bringing up "what about x" has many valid uses. For example:
"Look at my perpetual motion machine!" "What about the cable plugged into the outlet?" "Don't change the subject!"
"You are a murderer because you killed Mr. Jones." "What about the fact that Mr. Jones broke into my house and was trying to rape my wife?" "Two wrongs don't make a right!"
Certainly it can be abused but very often the "what about x" argument can be a valid way of introducing new and relevant information.
"Look at my perpetual motion machine!" "What about the cable plugged into the outlet?" "Don't change the subject!"
"You are a murderer because you killed Mr. Jones." "What about the fact that Mr. Jones broke into my house and was trying to rape my wife?" "Two wrongs don't make a right!"
Certainly it can be abused but very often the "what about x" argument can be a valid way of introducing new and relevant information.
Not all all. In both cases, your "what about" stayed on topic.
That was exactly the point I was trying to make. "What about" arguments can be valid.
Splitting hairs, he was specifically referring to the deflection-style "what about" argument, as if the sins of others justifies one's own.
How does one differentiate "deflection-style 'what about' arguments" from valid "what about" arguments free from bias?
If that was a serious question and not a troll, check philosophy courses; should be some online. They have a bit of history in that discipline of logic and analyzing arguments...
I wasn't trolling. I was just pointing out that it seems like a subjective distinction as a practical matter and asking if there was a way to make it less subjective in the context of online comments, argument rebuttals, etc.
While we're on the topic, this is an exceptional blog that covers labor issues in neighboring Qatar. http://qatar.livejournal.com/tag/rights
The original Dubai article was very interesting and a good fit for HN, imho. This one feels more like a Reddit submission.
Really? I disagree. The original article was written in tones of anger and disgust. Most of what he said there is accurate by my reckoning, and these facts stand on their own without the need of his London-tabloidesque prose. Yep, I just made that word up.
This new article is a calm discussion about rhetoric and dealing with trolls, something HN seems quite interested in.
This new article is a calm discussion about rhetoric and dealing with trolls, something HN seems quite interested in.
I actually agree almost %100 - the initial article's tone was very, well, Johan Harri in The Independent (London-tabloidesque is putting it mildly :)), but the subject was interesting. This one is indeed about rhetoric and trolls - while an interesting subject, not sure this is where I'd go for advice on it..
This article is presumably going to get flagged, but I would accuse Mr. Hari of dishonesty here. His original piece gave the impression that Dubai was a total hell on earth, totally beyond redemption. From reading his article, I got the impression that human rights are vastly more respected in Britain than in Dubai. If this is his belief (and not just my impression,) then he should defend it, instead of hiding behind "the world is not divided into a Block of Light and a Block of Darkness."
(I thought his Dubai piece was long on opinion and short on facts, but that is neither here nor there.)
(I thought his Dubai piece was long on opinion and short on facts, but that is neither here nor there.)
You're falling into the exact same fallacy he's pointing. Why should he start defending a position he never expressed? There are many things you can "get the impression that". Why would you hang on to them and not address the main points, which are as big and visible as a painted target?
As for the rebuttal, it didn't even try to address the original article. It just tried to change the discussion to a more favorable position.
It's not just my impression: "This is a city built from nothing in just a few wild decades on credit and ecocide, suppression and slavery. Dubai is a living metal metaphor for the neo-liberal globalised world that may be crashing – at last – into history."
Al Qassemi seems to say that one could draw a similarly broad and misleading conclusion about Britain. Maybe Hari should at least address this point. I mean, he hints that the answer is yes, and such a conclusion is valid, but he never says it.
EDIT: On second thought, I'm making exactly the same mistake he's pointing out.
Al Qassemi seems to say that one could draw a similarly broad and misleading conclusion about Britain. Maybe Hari should at least address this point. I mean, he hints that the answer is yes, and such a conclusion is valid, but he never says it.
EDIT: On second thought, I'm making exactly the same mistake he's pointing out.
> EDIT: On second thought, I'm making exactly the same mistake he's pointing out.
Congratulations on recognizing that.
Congratulations on recognizing that.
[deleted]
You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it - hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case.
Isn't this just a Red Herring fallacy?
From Wikipedia: Red herring (logical fallacy), a deliberate attempt to change a subject or divert an argument