Logic

A very common retort when critizising somebody for a reprehensible action (like selling drugs) is that "If I don't do it, somebody else will". Does this kind of bad reasoning fall into any of the classical categories of argument fallacies?

Comments

I could be wrong, but I am not aware of a formal or informal term that gets at precisely that defense of reprehensible action, but one could see it as what may informally be called a Red Herring or a case of what may be called "Two Wrongs Make a Right." Arguably whether one person's act is unethical does not rest on the grounds that if the person did not do something wrong, another person would do the wrong act. The actions of others is thus irrelevant or distracting, as in a Red Herring. This might be slightly qualified, however, when the wrongful acts of others may make it excessively dangerous for one to obey the law. Imagine that you are on a highway in which all the cars around you are exceeding the speed limit by 30mph, and that if you were to drive the prescribed speed limit, you would endanger your own life and those of others. In terms of drugs, I believe it is illegal for you to sell or give a drug that has been prescribed for you to another person. Imagine you are seated next to a person on a plane who is gripped by a terrifying fear of flying. The person next to him is about to sell him some illegal narcotics that will indeed calm his fears but it will also mean that the money goes to a drug cartel known to be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent persons. You, on the other hand, can give or sell him some of your safe and efficient anti-anxiety medicine. If there is no other course of action and you gave him your drugs and a flight attendant asked why you did it, I can see offering the reply "If I hadn't do it, that passenger would have contributed to a nasty, murderous drug cartel.

Read another response by Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Logic