Is there a name for this fallacy?

[Cavemonster]

The very first time I remember being offended by the poor logic of a peer, I was in the fifth grade.

A group of about a dozen boy's and girls were playing on a playground fixture with a large slide, somebody was doing some kind of roughhousing just in time to be caught by one of the adults patrolling the playground. She came over to the slide and said "Enough of that, all the boys, off the slide, you all get a 5 minute time out"

I was pretty incensed that the punishment was doled out to only the boys, when I had been minding my own business, and several of the girls seem to have been part of the problem, but that's not the lapse in logic I want to talk about here.

I was complaining about the gender discrimination to one of the girls who had been on the slide, about how unfair the punishment had seemed. She turned to me and said "Yeah, but if it had been a male recess monitor instead of a woman, he would have punished all the girls, so it evens out."

I'm sad to say I still regularly see variations of this argument, all the time.
It has three parts.

1. A tu quoque,
2. As if that's not enough, it doesn't address past behavior, but predicted behavior, becoming a.. what, premeptive tu quoque?
3. The behavioral prediction itself is widely off the mark and without evidence.

Basically: You can't criticize person/group X for acting this way because person/group Y would do the same thing or worse (even though they haven't).

You see it in politics, issues of gender and race,, everywhere. And to me, it remains one of the most frustrating lapses in logic.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think of what you mentioned tu quoque is the closest. I'd say it's the two wrongs don't make a right "fallacy".

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/twowrong.html

It's really just a specific type of irrelevancy or red herring argument.

However, since a 5 minute time out imposed collectively on the boys is a relatively minor thing, I think there's a decent argument to be made that the ethics of imposing such a thing is "close enough". To get real justice in an elementary school setting, you'd need a lot more adults per child, and you'd need to conduct something like a criminal trial to ascertain who is at fault for what. It's simply not worth the effort and resources, and at least some of what is being "taught" in this situation is simply obedience to authority.

To the larger political questions of gender, race, and so on, I think what often happens is the same situation can be framed narrowly or broadly.

For example, affirmative action and quotas may not be technically fair in any given situation, but in the broader context of cultural norms, there's no other way to correct generations of discrimination but with reverse discrimination. In a way, the slighter wrong is meant to correct a huge wrong that was carried out for hundreds of years and had lasting, entrenched effects on subsequent generations.)

 

[Cavemonster]

However, since a 5 minute time out imposed collectively on the boys is a relatively minor thing, I think there's a decent argument to be made that the ethics of imposing such a thing is "close enough".

I hope I was clear, I wasn't talking about the time-out, but about my classmate's justification for it. It's such a common red herring, that I'd be surprised if no one ever gave it a more specific name.

 

[Vortigern99]

It seems to me there is a bit of special pleading going on in the girl's response.

As I understand the term, special pleading is creating a fictional scenario and conjecturing on what one believes, personally and subjectively, would or might happen in such a situation.

Personally I'm prepared to call it the playground fallacy, and leave it at that.

 

[Gazpacho]

I don't see that there's necessarily a fallacy here. It matters whether the girl's claim about male monitors is accurate. (And whether your claim about the girls misbehaving is accurate.)

 

[Delvo]

Actually, the accuracy of her claim is irrelevant. Even if some other situation such as she described were to arise at some other time, it wouldn't "even out" the particular situation they were already in at that moment, and even if it did, "evening out" is still different from getting things right in the first place.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I hope I was clear, I wasn't talking about the time-out, but about my classmate's justification for it.

Yes, but the two are related. She gave a faulty justification for an extremely minor injustice, but the alternative, as I suggest, would be to advocate for an absurdly costly application of justice.

It's such a common red herring, that I'd be surprised if no one ever gave it a more specific name.

They have. "The two wrongs make a right fallacy".

 

[Cavemonster]

Delvo, exactly.

Here's another common example.

The media is wrong to criticize Sarah Palin so much. If a democrat said all those things they wouldn't be so harsh.

I'm realizing as I type this that the tu quoque may not be essential to what I'm trying to describe, perhaps I misspoke with that. What I'm trying to describe is how a predicted future behavior is used to address a present one.

The predicted future behavior is being brought in as a premise, when really, to take it as a premise should first require an argument of it's own. We can't logically accept a predicted future behavior as relevant to an analysis of past behaviors unless we have a strong argument that the prediction is very likely.

 

[Gazpacho]

Even if some other situation such as she described were to arise at some other time, it wouldn't "even out" the particular situation they were already in at that moment,

I don't see why it wouldn't.

and even if it did, "evening out" is still different from getting things right in the first place.

You can't assume that someone in a subordinate social role will develop a strong belief that things will "get right."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It seems to me there is a bit of special pleading going on in the girl's response.

As I understand the term, special pleading is creating a fictional scenario and conjecturing on what one believes, personally and subjectively, would or might happen in such a situation.

Special pleading is where you basically make a rule (or accept a premise) but then make an exception to it in order to reach the conclusion. I don't think it applies here.

Personally I'm prepared to call it the playground fallacy, and leave it at that.

I'd definitely go with that!

It also captures the point I was making about children's overblown sense of justice and fair play.

 

[Cavemonster]

Yes, but the two are related. She gave a faulty justification for an extremely minor injustice, but the alternative, as I suggest, would be to advocate for an absurdly costly application of justice.

I can say that the earth is round because this marble is round and when I drop this marble it falls to the earth. My conclusion is correct, but my argument is faulty. I'm just talking about the argument, one that I see an awful lot. The fact that in this case she came to the correct conclusion is irrelevant, because she got there by chance.

They have. "The two wrongs make a right fallacy".

I think this is a more specific usage, in that it relies on an unargued premise of a prediction of future behavior.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think this is a more specific usage, in that it relies on an unargued premise of a prediction of future behavior.

It's pretty much the epitome of the two wrongs make a right fallacy. She thinks that the unjust punishment of boys will be made right by some other unjust punishment of girls. Even if that unjust punishment of girls takes place, it would not change the fact that the punishment of the boys was unjust. So the fact that she's talking about a prediction of future behavior isn't important.

If her prediction is false, then it's clear her evaluation of the present unjust act is wrong. But even if her prediction is true, it still doesn't make the present unjust act into a just one. ETA: So that "unargued premise" is moot. The fallacy is her thinking that two wrongs make a right.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Sounds to me like Cavemonster needs to lighten up. The kid acknowledged it was unfair and then shrugged it off saying in effect, "We all get treated unfairly. It's just a frigging playground slide for crying out loud. No sense getting all worked and making a post about it on a discussion board."

Or maybe the kid was perplexed as to why some adult was so worked up over a little playground incident thinking the boys were uniformly mistreated, so she decided to clear up the misunderstanding by reassuring Cavemonster that the girls were treated unfairly as well. Therefore, there's no gender discrimination so much as adults taking the lazy way out when it comes to discipline.

Seriously, what are you looking for here?

 

[Jonquill]

Isn't this the same as when say the Australian government proposes that Muslim women shouldn't be allowed to wear full head gear in public.
Some people object to this idea saying that Australia is a country where people should have religious freedom.
Other people reply - But they treat non-Mulims in their countries far worse, so it is okay.

Playgrounds are trivial, but this type of argument is used for more serious stuff too.

 

[Cavemonster]

Playgrounds are trivial, but this type of argument is used for more serious stuff too.

Exactly. I'm not sure why some posters are hung up on the stakes of the example and not the form. Of course the stakes are stupid, I was a kid.

Isn't this the same as when say the Australian government proposes that Muslim women shouldn't be allowed to wear full head gear in public.
Some people object to this idea saying that Australia is a country where people should have religious freedom.
Other people reply - But they treat non-Mulims in their countries far worse, so it is okay.

That would be a simple tu quoque. But to modify it slightly:

Let's say we've waterboarded a suspected terrorist, and a pro-torture pundit comes on Fox News and says "I don't see why people are complaining, if he captured a US soldier, he would torture our guy far worse"

And we hear arguments just like that every day, not just that one side's behavior excuses another's, but that unsupported conjectures about one side's possible behavior provides a justification.

 

[HansMustermann]

Technically, a Tu Quoque is IMHO a bit more specific case. The keyword there is "tu", meaning "you". It's only a Tu Quoque if it's literally in the form of "you do it too" or close enough to be, basically, an accusation of hypocrisy.

I.e., if basically you can make the case that the girl was saying, "if it were _you_ then you'd have punished the girls", then it would be a Tu Quoque.

It is a Tu Quoque when in the form of "they would do it too", if "they" are the ones complaining about it or they are treated as those making the complaint. Because then it's an indirect answer to the effect of "you would do it too."

I think JoeTheJuggler nailed it. It's a textbook case of the Two Wrongs Make A Right fallacy. (Of which the Tu Quoque is a sub-case. But it does tend to be mis-used for the whole category.)

 

[blutoski]

I've had time to think about this, and I don't think there's a logical fallacy so much as a questionable premise that is based on a value.

Essentially, she appears to be holding the unspoken premise that two acts of discrimination are just, which is simply a questionable premise.

Not everybody believes that 'two wrongs make a right' is even a fallacy. It's one reason that Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard were cool on Kantian morals.

It's not triggerd when, say, executing a murderer, or capturing and imprisoning a kidnapper.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not everybody believes that 'two wrongs make a right' is even a fallacy. It's one reason that Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard were cool on Kantian morals.

It's not triggerd when, say, executing a murderer, or capturing and imprisoning a kidnapper.

I don't think executing a murder or imprisoning criminals is meant to correct the wrong that was done. In fact, you frequently hear people say that this won't bring a murdered loved one back to life. It's meant to prevent the criminal from committing wrongs again in the future. (FWIW, I'm opposed to capital punishment.)

In this case, the second wrong is argued as making the first wrong somehow OK. As someone said, it is an attempt to equal things out.

I think the legal thing closest to trying to right a wrong is restitution. And restitution is more like doing whatever it takes to undo a wrong. So it's not a second wrong attempting to fix the first wrong.

I would agree that there are circumstances when a second minor wrong is the right thing to do, but it doesn't undo a previous wrong. For example, affirmative action or hiring quotas do not undo the wrong of slavery. Slavery was wrong, and no matter what we do in the future it will remain a wrong marring the first chapter in U.S. history.

 

[Harpyja]

Sounds to me like Cavemonster needs to lighten up. The kid acknowledged it was unfair and then shrugged it off saying in effect, "We all get treated unfairly. It's just a frigging playground slide for crying out loud. No sense getting all worked and making a post about it on a discussion board."

Or maybe the kid was perplexed as to why some adult was so worked up over a little playground incident thinking the boys were uniformly mistreated, so she decided to clear up the misunderstanding by reassuring Cavemonster that the girls were treated unfairly as well. Therefore, there's no gender discrimination so much as adults taking the lazy way out when it comes to discipline.

Seriously, what are you looking for here?

From OP:

You see it in politics, issues of gender and race,, everywhere. And to me, it remains one of the most frustrating lapses in logic.

I'm pretty sure you attacking the example instead of the lapse of logic (Group A is subject to some injustice/punishment by Group B, Group B claims that if the same decision of injustice/punishment was presented to Group A, they would make the same choice) is a strawman; which makes your post somewhat ironic. What Cavemonster presented was a very simple example used to explain a point. You could pretty much fill in whatever you want, it's still a lapse in logic.

 

[Uncayimmy]

From OP:


I'm pretty sure you attacking the example instead of the lapse of logic (Group A is subject to some injustice/punishment by Group B, Group B claims that if the same decision of injustice/punishment was presented to Group A, they would make the same choice) is a strawman; which makes your post somewhat ironic. What Cavemonster presented was a very simple example used to explain a point. You could pretty much fill in whatever you want, it's still a lapse in logic.

Sorry, not seeing it.

We're talking about kids on a playground reacting to an adult punishing a group unfairly and noting that privileged group is also treated unfairly at times. Therefore, there is no privileged group. That is not a logical fallacy.

Another possibility is a more philosophical one: Life's not fair. Sometimes I get things I don't deserve, like playing on the slide even though I was acting up. Sometimes I am treated unfairly, like being told to get off the slide when I wasn't doing anything wrong. Life is just like that, so there's no sense getting all worked about it. That's not a logical fallacy.

The reason people are struggling to define the logical fallacy here is that they have to stretch the comments so far beyond their plain meaning. Carefully look at what we're told:

I was complaining about the gender discrimination to one of the girls who had been on the slide, about how unfair the punishment had seemed. She turned to me and said "Yeah, but if it had been a male recess monitor instead of a woman, he would have punished all the girls, so it evens out."

* There girl acknowledges that "gender discrimination" happened.
* She said it happens against girls as well.
* She said it all "evens out" over time.

Translation: Quit whining, recess is almost over.