Quote:
Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?"[2]
It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.
|
Sort of, unless you're not arguing the basic logic of the argument, but rather the double standard itself. It's not Peter saying that animal products are morally wrong, it's Peter saying, "I won't allow Bill to use animal products" but continuing to use them himself. In that case it doesn't matter if animal products are morally acceptable or not, the primary problem is the injustice.