#96: The “You’re No Better Than They Are” Move

May 25, 2011

There are a couple of similar argument moves made on the Left that deserve to be examined. The first I’ll call the “You’re No Better Than They Are” move. It is sometimes also known as the Moral Equivalence Argument. This one is famously applied to both the U.S. and Israel by Lefties. When the U.S. or Israel calls, say Iran, evil for doing x or y, the Leftie responds by arguing that the U.S. or Israel, whichever is the objector, has itself done x or y and is therefore just as evil. They conclude from this that the U.S. or Israel “has no right” to criticise, since doing so convicts them of hypocrisy.

The second move is what I like to call the “That Makes Us No Better Than Them” move. When we bomb the enemy in reprisal or we use torture, and we point out that the other side did it first, the Lefties get up high on their moral horses and argue against it. They say that using the enemy’s own tactics “makes us no better than them.” They seem to conclude from this that we sacrifice the moral high ground and make our aggression against an enemy morally indefensible. This piece of self-destructive sanctimony has it’s historical roots in the blatherings of Socrates.

These two are instances of Argument From Analogy. Here is a simple example of this kind of argument. Tommy and Timmy are physically identical twins;  we have known Tommy to be utterly honest, but we have had no dealings at all with Timmy; if we decide that Timmy is also honest because he resembles his brother in all perceivable respects, then we are reasoning by analogy.

More formally, in an argument by analogy we infer that someone or something B has a certain property, say z, simply because B resembles some A in many known respects, where A is also known to have z. This argument kind, by the way, was brilliantly explored by David Hume.

Let us apply Argument by Analogy to the first case, that of Hamas and Israel.

Hamas throws bombs at Israel and it is evil for doing so; Israel resembles Hamas in throwing bombs at others; therefore, it is argued, Israel must also resemble Hamas in being evil for doing so.

And in the second case, that of reprisal or torture, it is argued that because we might resemble the Iranians in using torture, we are also no different from them morally.

The vulnerability of arguments from analogy lies in the fact that our knowledge of the resemblances used as premises is never complete, and that there thus also exist possible differences. That is, the resemblance of known properties does not necessarily extend to remaining unknown properties. And it is because the resemblances are never completely known that there is absolutely no rational basis for concluding that resemblances extend beyond what we have already perceived.

Now, while arguments by analogy are never deductively valid, they can, in practice, be either stronger or weaker, but this is not the place to explore all the criteria for a strong argument by analogy, but there is one criterion that is important here.

The basis for the argument by analogy is, as I’ve said, the resemblance said to exist between two cases, say A and B, where A is also known to have z, which can encourage one to believe that B is also likely to have z. What has to be noted here, however, is that the strength of such an argument depends on the likelihood that z is somehow connected to the properties that A and B have in common and not to one or more properties unique to A. Let’s say that A and B have q, r, and x in common, A also has y and z, while B does not have y. Should we infer that B has z? This depends on whether z is somehow connected to q, r, or x, on the one hand, or to y, on the other. In the former case, we should make the inference, but in the latter, not.

This complication is necessary here in order to see that the problem with the Leftie arguments is not one based on an ignorance of logic, it is rather one based on intentional sophistry, one based on intellectual dishonesty.

The trick being played by the Lefties is that of pretending that the inferred property, z (or evil) is linked to a property common to A and B instead of one of the differing properties.

This can be seen by considering the Israel/Hamas argument. Yes, Israel and Hamas are similar in both throwing bombs (r and x) and, yes, Hamas is evil (z), but the evil of Hamas is not linked to properties r and x, it is actually linked to a property y which shows up in Hamas, but not in Israel. Hamas targets innocents (y) and Israel does not. The moral status of evil is tied not to the throwing of bombs in which Israel and Hamas resemble one another, but to the choice of the targets of those bombs, in which they differ, and thus the lefties’ argument is an attempt at intellectual deception.

This demonstrates the key thing to know about arguments by analogy, namely that it does not follow from the fact that some B resembles some A in some respects, that it resembles A in all respects. In the Hamas/Israel comparison, the Leftie attempts to link evil to a property that Hamas and Israel share, while in fact evil is linked to a property that only Hamas has.

The same thing is true of the “that Makes Us No Better Than Them” move. Our moral status is not tied to the use of torture, but rather to what that torture is in aid of. If we torture, it is to save our citizens from terrorist attack, and when they torture it is for the purpose of terrorizing, for personal pleasure, or for religious reasons. Thus, torturing does not necessarily “make us no better than them,” and the argument is once again an intellectual deception.