I was recently watching a video on YouTube in which Harrison Ford gives an impassioned speech at the Global Climate Action Summit 2018, calling for people to stop giving power to leaders who don’t believe in science. An important point. But the comments section was awash with remarks criticizing Ford’s hypocrisy in calling for climate action whilst privately owning and flying a number of aircraft. Some examples:
These comments are classic examples of an ad hominem attack – a form of logical fallacy that attempts to undermine the character or motives of a person rather than debating the actual argument that person makes.
In this case, while owning and operating a fleet of aircraft may be hypocritical for someone calling for action on climate change, this fact does not invalidate the argument Ford makes about the importance of electing leaders who understand science and take strong action on climate change. The broader point I wish to make here is this:
An act of hypocrisy does not invalidate the argument a person makes, or the cause they promote.
Harrison Ford is not the only public figure making noise about climate change who has been subjected to such attacks. Leonardo diCaprio has been disparaged for calling on people to protect the environment yet flying around in private jets. Al Gore was criticized for excessive energy use in his own house whilst calling for action on climate change.
Yes, these are examples of hypocrisy. But what I am concerned about, and what I am trying to point out in this post, is that this kind of attack is used as a tactic to divert attention away from the argument being made. In logical terms, the alleged hypocrisy of the arguer is irrelevant. It is the argument that matters. And so, when Harrison Ford calls upon us to stop putting people in power who don’t believe in science, or Al Gore calls for action on climate change, whilst their instances of hypocrisy may be regrettable, their message still stands.
~
Obviously, social media comments sections are a favourite place for trolls to lurk – logical, fact-based debate is not their aim. Still, I think it is useful to have the facts and arguments at hand to counter them, even if they are incapable of an intelligent response.
For reference, the specific type of logical fallacy I refer to here is called ad hominem to quoque – an appeal to hypocrisy, in which an attempt is made to discredit the opponent’s argument by pointing out that the opponent does not act consistently in accordance with the conclusions of the argument.
Sources / further information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
https://youtu.be/elWauyLExK0 – The YouTube video I refer to