0

What fallacy would "pot calling the kettle black" be, or basically discharging criticism at someone who doesn't substantially differ from you, only in a nuance of the same deviation? I can see a form of special pleading for a completely arbitrary line of acceptance drawn in between the critic and the critiqued, which would be a form of hypocrisy. Is there a better fallacy to in which to classify this phrase?

CLARIFICATION: I don't mean saying "pot calling the kettle" itself is a fallacy -- I mean what it is being called against

amphibient
  • 1,438
  • 13
  • 24
  • Wouldn't it depend on judgement calls about "substantially" and "nuance"? And even making wrong judgement calls, while unfortunate, is not a fallacy. Neither is hypocrisy. Indeed, appeal to hypocrisy, tu quoque (you too), is itself a fallacy. "Judge what I say, not what I do" still holds for arguments, its bad reputation notwithstanding. – Conifold Jul 20 '17 at 21:13
  • you can ignore the 2nd part of my first sentence (after the comma) and simply imagine a situation in which it would be appropriate to use the phrase – amphibient Jul 20 '17 at 21:51
  • I think some specific example would be better. The use of idioms is pretty broad and intuitive, and on Wikipedia's description of this one, "as a retort to the person who criticizes another of the same defect that he plainly has", I do not see a fallacy as such. Same with "not seeing the forest for the trees". – Conifold Jul 20 '17 at 22:16
  • A false analogy is established as a fallacy. But if someone ignores an obvious analogy (as the person does who gets the attribute "pot calling the kettle black"), it is not a fallacy. What is the reason thereof? –  Jul 21 '17 at 06:21
  • I'm confused as to what it is that you are asking. Are you saying "Someone committed a fallacy and they are therefore a pot calling a kettle black" or are you saying "Someone calling someone a pot calling a kettle black is fallacious" ? Is someone who commits a fallacy a pot or is calling someone a pot a fallacy, in your question? – Not_Here Jul 21 '17 at 06:58
  • I mean what fallacy is a cause for which someone would be called "pot calling the kettle...". i don't mean that the person using the phrase is committing a fallacy – amphibient Jul 21 '17 at 14:35
  • The phrase "pot calling the kettle black" is used when someone is being hypocritical. Hypocrisy is not a fallacy, in fact, trying to say that someone is a hypocrite and therefore their arguent is invalid is itself a fallacy called Tu quoque. So the answer to your question is "none" because being a hipocrite is not a fallacy. If somebody says "littering is bad" and then later proceeds to litter, that does not mean the sentence "littering is bad" is false. – Not_Here Jul 22 '17 at 02:06
  • @Not_Here: 1.) However, perhaps it is not hypocrisy, but a general anancastic blindness of a person, which would surely be a (not yet labeled) fallacy. — 2.) While hypocrisy cannot be regarded as a fallacy because it is too difficult to grasp, if we do not call it hypocrisy but ‘a general weakness to see coherences’, then it is quite surely a fallacy. It is then, for instance, analogous to the fallacy of tabooing something, which has been described in this list. –  Jul 22 '17 at 02:45
  • @Zeus Why should "general weakness", cognitive or otherwise, be a fallacy? It seems people are trying to drain the word "fallacy" of almost any meaning and turn into a philosophical equivalent of "boo!" But character flaws, bad judgements, cognitive obstacles, biases and other failings, including "anancastic blindness", need not be called "fallacies" to be "baaad". Fallacy is a flaw in logical reasoning, not in behavior, psychophysiology, or everything under the Sun. And the "taboo fallacy" seems like a fancy name for what is known as begging the question, which is a flaw in reasoning. – Conifold Jul 25 '17 at 00:36
  • @Conifold, 1.) “Fallacy is a flaw in logical reasoning” — But it depends on whether one is contemplating in ‘logic modus’ or in ‘argumentation theory/rhetoric modus’. 2.) All fallacies are somehow connected. But there are so many subclasses of each of them that it is difficult to overview whether there are exceptions where they do not coincide. 3.) People with strange behavior may make anankastic argumentative operations that somehow cannot be discerned from an argumentative defect (argumentative fallacy) even if the motive is otherwise, because the motive is often unknown. –  Jul 25 '17 at 01:37
  • @Zeus In the "rhetoric modus" fallacies are moot since rhetoric is supposed to be effective, not valid. If it achieves that by employing sleights of hand, stirring emotions, and exploiting biases so much the better, that makes it "slick", not defective. Now, (overt) hypocrisy is a defect in this regard because it diminishes rhetorical effectiveness of the speaker, but I see no point in stretching the notion of "fallacy" to that. Let alone to strange behavior with unknown motives. – Conifold Jul 25 '17 at 02:47
  • @Conifold You say that argumentation theory (which is BTW not identical with rhetoric) is moot. I decidedly deny that. The truth is that logic is unfit to analyze real argumentation, hence reversely logic is moot when it tries to explain argumentation. See also: Hastings, Arthur: A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation, Dissertation, Northwestern University, 1962. … –  Jul 26 '17 at 01:38
  • … Another term for argumentation theory is “informal logic”. Logic is unnatural bookkeeping as explained here in part 1, § 3. –  Jul 26 '17 at 01:38
  • @Zeus I agree that formal logic is very far from real argumentation, but then why drag "fallacy" into this? Even "informal fallacies" refer to flaws in argumentation that can be reconstructed as at least attempting a valid inference. To the extent that logic is unfit to analyze real argumentation the notion of fallacy does not belong to the analysis either. – Conifold Jul 26 '17 at 22:56
  • @Conifold: I see two aspects: 1.) The term fallacy is not dragged into argumentation, rather deception (fallacy) is central to the pragmatism of life generally, which operates with argumentations. // 2.) Logic is itself a fallacy since it is begging the question, as explained here (§ 1); BTW this has also been claimed by Stuart Mill. See: Douglas Walton: Begging the Question, Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of Argumentation, 1991, Greenwood Press, p. 17 ff. — Hence logic is a tactic … –  Jul 27 '17 at 01:03
  • … of argumentation; and argumentation is the broader term of logic. That logic is a fallacy may be easily demonstrated by the fact that logic (like bookkeeping) only imitates, and imitation is somehow deceitful (fallacious) if it is regarded as uppermost entity (as is usually done with logic, probably since Charlemagne {Part 1, §3}) because this jams the flow of life. While fallacy hence “dwells” within logic, it is nevertheless questionable whether, on this disgraceful basis, logic is the legitimate home village of the term fallacy. –  Jul 27 '17 at 01:03

4 Answers4

2

You might be thinking of "tu quoque"-- "You also." The fallacy appears when Person A responds to criticism from B by pointing out that B does the same thing. The response does not prove or negate anything; its purpose is to silence. This particular line of thinking is routine in international disputes, especially over human rights.

Mark Andrews
  • 6,240
  • 5
  • 22
  • 40
  • —1, Since this is not an answer: OP explicitly does not relate to a reactive reproach of a second person by the sentence "you are calling the pot black", but to some previous proposition of the first person, by which the sentence in quotes has been provoked. — In the comments to the answer, Conifold already explained that appeal to hypocrisy (= tu quoque) is a fallacy, but this is not the issue, as just explained. –  Jul 21 '17 at 15:42
1

‘The pot that calls the kettle black’ is a special case of the fallacy of ‘ignoring valid analogy’.

It could also be regarded as the fallacy of ‘dual moral code’ or of ‘doublethink’.

If someone gets rightly the attribute “pot that calls the kettle black”, he has obviously a kind of ‘dual moral code’ since he reproaches the other person an attribute that he tolerates for himself. A second suitable synonymous name is ‘double think’: someone thinks something for one context and then he thinks the opposite in a second equivalent context.

In the comments to the question, Conifold said that this is not a fallacy, as also hypocrisy isn’t one. — However, I somehow recognize this ‘dual moral code’ or ‘doublethink’ as a case of analogy, since two persons (or in an extended sense things associated with these persons), that are validly analogous in some respect, are compared. But, of course, it is not the fallacy of wrong analogy, but obviously its counterpart: the fallacy of ignoring valid analogy. As far as I know, this fallacy has never been explicitly mentioned before, and the fallacy of ‘dual moral code’ neither.

0

This is not a fallacy. In fact, you are committing a fallacy by saying that it is. The fallacy you are committing is the standard ad hominem fallacy.

Here's an example. Say I am a convicted criminal, and you commit a crime.

Me: You shouldn't commit crimes, it's amoral.

You: That's like the pot calling the kettle black.

Above is a pure ad hominem fallacy on your part. Whether I am a criminal or not has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

Imean H
  • 219
  • 1
  • 4
  • I'm lost....... – amphibient Jul 20 '17 at 22:20
  • to clarify -- i don't mean saying "pot calling the kettle" is a fallacy -- i mean what it is being called against – amphibient Jul 20 '17 at 22:28
  • Read again, try harder. – Imean H Jul 20 '17 at 22:29
  • If the two statements are absolute, then you are correct. One's status as a criminal does not necessarily imply that their judging another as a criminal is without merit. It does, however, imply that an alternate agenda may be coloring the observation, statements rarely being absolute. – tj1000 Jul 21 '17 at 02:22
  • @amphibient If being the pot who's calling the kettle black (not the person saying the phrase) is the supposed "fallacy" to which you're referring then this answer is right. There is nothing fallacious about being a hypocrite. And, in fact, pointing out the hypocrisy as a means of discrediting the criticism is an example of ad hominem. – Bridgeburners Jul 21 '17 at 13:14
  • @tj100 You're not making any sense. Even if the first criminal (me) has some sort of a hidden agenda, using the 'pot calling kettle black'-argument remains a fallacy since it has no purpose other than make the criminal (me) look bad, and to evade the discussion at hand. If you were truly interested in any hidden agendas, then the correct approach would be to simply ask me a question and spark a debate, rather than ruin debates by acting as if anything I say automatically doesn't count because I am a criminal. – Imean H Jul 21 '17 at 18:58
  • @Bridgeburners: 1.) "... pointing out the hypocrisy" -- But "You shouldn't commit crimes, it's amoral" said by a convicted criminal, is a bad example of hypocrisy since one does not know how many years have passed since he was convicted and whether he changed his character. -- 2.) Further, the answer of tj1000 anyway cannot be right because he is just referring to the person saying the phrase ("the pot calling ....") although you incomprehensibly claim the contrary, boldly ignoring the facts and hence contradicting yourself. –  Jul 21 '17 at 23:13
  • Imean H: Anyway, you didn’t answer the question since 1.) "You shouldn't commit crimes, it's amoral" is a bad example (as explained in the previous comment), and 2.) the OP is referring to this first sentence, which provokes the other person to say "That's like the pot calling the kettle black." -- But your explanation that it is a fallacy refers to the second sentence "That's like the pot calling the kettle black." That's why I downvoted you yesterday. –  Jul 21 '17 at 23:29
  • @Zeus You're the one who's confused here. Both Imean H and I understand that amphibian is referring to the person who provoked the statement, not the statement itself. But as Imean points out, that's wrong. Here's a better example. Person A shoplifts a spoon. Right after, person B shoplifts a spoon. A then says to B, "it's wrong to shoplift". Amphibian thinks that A is making the logical fallacy, but as Imean correctly points out, there's nothing fallacious about what person A says. In fact it's fallacious to think that A is being fallacious (it's an ad hominem fallacy). – Bridgeburners Jul 22 '17 at 02:14
  • @Bridgeburners: 1.) This new example (shoplifting) is again too trivial and distorting. It could only occur as a joke in real life. But it is not possible to study argumentation by using unrealistic and hence ridiculous examples. A realistic example must be much more neutral, e.g. comparing how clean it is in my vs. your room. 2.) After the OP's formulation was already very difficult to read, it was reckless by Imean that he confused it further by an even more incomprehensible answer and then further complicating it with discussing that the OP's question about fallacy is again a fallacy etc. –  Jul 22 '17 at 03:44
  • Not really interesting in wading into whatever is going on in the comments, but you might want to look up "amoral" and compare it with "immoral" – virmaior Apr 05 '18 at 00:08
0

Projection

The expression "Pot calling the kettle black" is not — as some think — to call out hypocrisy, but projection.

The analogy is not that the kettle supposedly is as black as the pot. Instead the copper kettle is meant to be shiny. So what the black cast iron pot is seeing in the reflection in the kettle is themselves.

enter image description here

Kettles are not black, they are shiny and reflective. So if you see a black kettle, you are looking at yourself being black.

Calling out someone for bearing the same flaw as themselves is to point to hypocrisy. The fallacy in doing that is that you have not attacked an argument at all. It is essentially a non sequiteur. The response to that is "Yes, I know I have the same flaw. My argument/behaviour is no more valid than yours".

MichaelK
  • 5,144
  • 1
  • 16
  • 28