The Minister for Agriculture and former pig farmer Sirkka-Liisa Anttila committed a classical logical fallacy in her defense of the Finnish fur trade. For those of you who like to show off at cocktail parties (Phineas certainly does, it’s also why he drinks his Martini’s alone) there’s a name for Ms. Anttila’s mistake, it is derived from Latin and is called a Tu Quoque (pronounced Tu Kwokwe).
First we must show Ms. Anttila’s faulty logic and then we can analyze it. Ms. Anttila has stated in several media forms that if the fur trade was shut in Finland it would move to China where the animals would be even worse off.
It is hard to find a better example of this logical fallacy. It’s a great big shining Tu Quoque, pretty much the North Star of Tu Quoques to be precise, one that is seldom seen in the world of international politics nowadays (apart from the Republicans in the US).
Let us examine Ms. Anttila’s argument once again “If the fur trade in Finland would be banned, it would move to China were the conditions of the animals would be far worse”
Firstly the fact that Ms. Anttila’s benchmark (her point of reference and comparison) is a country with an abysmal record in animal rights, shows the contempt in which she holds animals in general. But that doesn’t make it a Tu Quoque argument. This is what makes it a Tu Quoque argument. In effect Ms. Anttila is saying:
1. The Chinese are in the fur trade
Therefore
2. We can be in the fur trade too.
What makes it a Tu Quoque logical fallacy is the fact that Ms. Anttila assumes that because someone else is doing it, then it makes it okay for her to do it. It does not follow logically that just becasue the Chinese are in the fur trade then that makes the fur trade justified. Just to clarify the point, Ms. Anttila still hasn’t handled the underlying question: Is the fur trade just? The reason her argument is not logical is because the conclusion does not follow the premise.
The Tu Quoque logical fallacy is a very common argument that is used by children, as for us adults it can be useful when one wants to deflect the debate from its root question. Once you know the Tu Quoque fallacy you can make a name for yourself as an irritating know-it-all or besservisser as they say in Finland when you can shout out from behind your Gin and Tonic that “Ahaaa. You Sir, have just commited a Tu Quoque, do you perhaps know what a Tu Quoque is? No? Aaah, allow me to explain…”
Tags: Animal Rights, Anttila, Finland, Fur trade, logical fallacy, Sirkka-Liisa, Tu Quoque
03/03/2010 at 4:11 pm |
Well put!
But another way of exposing the fallacy (without recourse to Latin terms) is to offer a counter-example. So, you might say to Ms Anttila, that by her reckoning Finland should also be involved in the businesses of people-trafficking, child pornography and live organ dealing — after all, if Finland doesn’t, criminal gangs will do so and the conditions for the people involved will be far worse.
Disclaimer: I am NOT suggesting a comparison between the fur trade and any of the criminal activities that I have listed. The point, as you say, is that whether any practice is held morally acceptable by a community can not be decided on the basis of whether another community is willing to engage in it.
(This response also works very well against those who defend selling arms to repressive regimes on the grounds that if we don’t do it, the Chinese will.)
03/08/2010 at 7:13 am |
That’s a fabulous idea. Finnish politicians are obsessed with the idea of “innovation” it’s innovation this and innovation that. I think you have really stumbled on something. Finland could be the world’s center for all the not so nice industries, but Finland could do it… not so bad.
A “rogue industrialism light” if you will:
Child labor? In Finland we are sooo much better than the Indonesian, we start them off at 14.
Weapons? Oh in Finland our weapons don’t kill immediately, they just maim.