What is this fallacy?

[Strange]

Claiming that someone else has responsibility for one's own actions. For example:

• Villain in a movie says, "If you don't pay the ransom / release the prisoners then you will be responsible for the death of the hostages"
• Trump blames the Democrats for his government's actions against immigrants
• Julian Assange is hiding from the law and claims he is being unlawfully detained
• etc

Does this rhetorical tactic have a name?

[mistermack]

I don't know a name, but I wouldn't say it's always a fallacy. 

If you run over my cat, and I have to take it to the vet and have it put down, then you are responsible for it's death, even though I ok'ed it and paid for it. Some might be fallacies, some might be true, and there would be lots of grey areas. 

Like if someone steps out in front of your car, and you instinctively swerve to avoid them, and end up killing two cyclists. Were you to blame for swerving, or was the pedestrian to blame for not looking? Or is it a bit of both, with bad luck added to the mix?

I suppose the most common case where it IS a fallacy is domestic violence. "You made me lose my temper". But even that isn't necessarily a fallacy. I remember I watched a whole documentary once, on battered women. I've never hit a woman in my life, but I have to admit one or two of them could easily have got me close to it. They just had something that touched all the nerves.

In real life, I'm sure I would have just run a mile, and avoided the situation altogether.

[koti]

False Equivalance comes to mind but its not exactly accurate in this case. 

[StringJunky]

 Blame shifting or psychological projection.

Quote

Psychological projection. Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Does this rhetorical tactic have a name?

Tu quoque, it is basically just a type of red herring where one redirects criticism as a way to avoid defending their own actions. 

Quote

 

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/; Latin for "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

 

 

[Strange]

29 minutes ago, NNY said:

Also, the OP is funny because it is pushing a narrative that Trump is a villian

Nope. I might or might not think he is right (that is not relevant) it was his decision not the democrats. 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

 Blame shifting or psychological projection.

Close. But that seems to be an unconscious act, whereas it seems to be deliberate in the cases I am thinking of.

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Tu quoque, it is basically just a type of red herring where one redirects criticism as a way to avoid defending their own actions. 

Closer. But isn't that more like "what about-ism" (you know, as in "What about Obama"  )

Edited June 18, 2018 by Strange

[Eise]

I am not sure if this is a fallacy. 

The only thing that comes close I know of is bad faith. At least it is lying about who really is responsible for the situation, denying one's own responsibility.

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Eise said:

I am not sure if this is a fallacy. 

The only thing that comes close I know of is bad faith. At least it is lying about who really is responsible for the situation, denying one's own responsibility.

It is certainly an example of that. I was wondering if there was something more specific. As most examples seem to be from bad action films, I will take a look at TV Tropes (I may be some time....)

7 minutes ago, NNY said:

But now I'm wondering what decision is it that Trump has made. 

To take a zero-tolerance approach to immigration which has caused headlines about children being taken from their families. That decision may be right or wrong. It is the fact that he claims it is the Democrats who need to change this, that is relevant to the OP. This is analogous to the prime example (fictional hostage takers) because he appears to be saying something like, "unless you [Democrats] do what I want, I will create more bad headlines" (as opposed to: "unless you give me 20 million helicopters and a dollar, you will be responsible for the death of these kittens")

[Ten oz]

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

Closer. But isn't that more like "what about-ism" (you know, as in "What about Obama"  )

Whataboutism is it own logical fallacy and a type of tu quoque. The difference between the 2 is whataboutism can be total topic shift. Whataboutism often merely seeks to slander in an attempt to shift focus. Tu quoque  specifically criticizes an individual for failure to be consistent with their own conclusions. Tu quoque is a charge of "you too" where  whataboutism is plainly just a "What about" plea. 

Quote

 

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

 

 

[Strange]

23 minutes ago, Eise said:

I am not sure if this is a fallacy. 

The only thing that comes close I know of is bad faith. At least it is lying about who really is responsible for the situation, denying one's own responsibility.

On second thoughts, the situation I am thinking of is closer to "homicide by inaction" (ie doing nothing to help someone who is dying, which can, I believe, be the criminal offence of "depraved indifference" in the US).

 

11 minutes ago, NNY said:

Ok.

According to this article, the original 'zero tolerance' policy was initiated by Bush #2 in 2005, and the zero tolerance policy was 'scaled back' by Obama, but it is Trump who has re initiated that zero tolerance policy again.

Did Bush say that it was the Democrat's responsibility? If not, this is an irrelevant diversion. (And, even if he did, it is irrelevant unless it leads us to a name for this tactic.)

I don't really care about American politics - my own country is fucked up quite enough, thank you.

[Strange]

Hijacking reported.

Can we stick to the example of The Villain in a movie telling Our Hero that she will be responsible for the deaths of all the people that The Villain is about to kill. It looks like there may not be a specific name for this type of argument.

[nevim]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

I am not sure if this is a fallacy. 

The only thing that comes close I know of is bad faith. At least it is lying about who really is responsible for the situation, denying one's own responsibility.

I’m also unsure if this is a fallacy. Having been on the receiving end of this kind of situation, to the extent that I nearly didn’t survive, in my opinion this is more of a mental illness eg Personlity Disorder, Sociapath, Psychopath...

3 hours ago, koti said:

False Equivalance comes to mind but its not exactly accurate in this case. 

Thanks for this link Koti. It’s really humourous. Something I noticed though - I think ‘gang banging’ has a different meaning in British English  . Does for me at least!

Edited June 18, 2018 by nevim
Spelling

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Politics hijack has been split off to the trash. The topic under discussion is logical fallacies. Stick to that discussion, please. 

 

[Strange]

30 minutes ago, nevim said:

I’m also unsure if this is a fallacy. Having been on the receiving end of this kind of situation, to the extent that I nearly didn’t survive, in my opinion this is more of a mental illness eg Personlity Disorder, Sociapath, Psychopath...

I'm not sure it really counts as a fallacy either. If it does, it is an informal, rhetorical fallacy rather than a logical fallacy.

But your point about psychopaths is a good one. The reason the trope works in a thriller is because we (the audience) know The Villain doesn't care about killing people but Our Hero does. And so do we. Therefore, we feel the dilemma (which would exist even without The Villain articulating it so explicitly) of the hero who will feel responsible for their deaths if she/he is unable to stop them.

[Eise]

37 minutes ago, nevim said:

I’m also unsure if this is a fallacy. Having been on the receiving end of this kind of situation, to the extent that I nearly didn’t survive, in my opinion this is more of a mental illness eg Personlity Disorder, Sociapath, Psychopath...

I don't think you have to refer to mental illness: in many organisations finger-pointing is a normal practice, meaning 'I am not responsible, (s)he is!'.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

On second thoughts, the situation I am thinking of is closer to "homicide by inaction" (ie doing nothing to help someone who is dying, which can, I believe, be the criminal offence of "depraved indifference" in the US).

I do not see this as the essence of your examples. Or you have given not the kind of examples of what you really have in mind.

Edited June 18, 2018 by Eise

[iNow]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Does this rhetorical tactic have a name?

Scapegoating comes to mind

[Strange]

Just now, iNow said:

Scapegoating comes to mind

Best so far!

10 minutes ago, Eise said:

I do not see this as the essence of your examples. Or you have given not the kind of examples of what you really have in mind.

I think you are right. I was just thinking out loud, I guess.

[nevim]

9 minutes ago, Eise said:

I don't think you have to refer to mental illness: in many organisations finger-pointing is a normal practice, meaning 'I am not responsible, (s)he is!'.

 

Yes, this is totally true and exactly how the ‘organisation’ I was on the receiving end of viewed their actions. But to anyone else who is able to think for themselves without being brain washed and following the crowd like sheep, it’s very obvious that it IS, in fact, mental illness.

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Scapegoating comes to mind

Yep, good one.

[Eise]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I think you are right. I was just thinking out loud, I guess.

Ha! Very good! That was what my physics teacher used to say when he called somebody for the blackboard, and he/she stood there hopelessly how to solve the problem: 'Think loud, please!'. Most of the times absolute silence was the result...

[swansont]

32 minutes ago, Eise said:

I don't think you have to refer to mental illness: in many organisations finger-pointing is a normal practice, meaning 'I am not responsible, (s)he is!'.

In an organizational context this is also known as "passing the buck" (which, in the French etymology is the link, is scapegoating)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_passing

[nevim]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

In an organizational context this is also known as "passing the buck" (which, in the French etymology is the link, is scapegoating)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_passing

Yes. 

But it is NOT normal behaviour.

[koti]

39 minutes ago, nevim said:

Yes. 

But it is NOT normal behaviour.

Normal is subjective, its not ethical for sure but its very common in corporate environments. 

[nevim]

35 minutes ago, koti said:

Normal is subjective, its not ethical for sure but its very common in corporate environments. 

Maybe it is. My experience was something totally different though. Not a work situation. It was my own private life unfortunately.

Plus, it was normal, acceptable behaviour for this ‘organisation’, - just not to me.

Edited June 18, 2018 by nevim

[Strange]

6 hours ago, mistermack said:

I don't know a name, but I wouldn't say it's always a fallacy. 

If you run over my cat, and I have to take it to the vet and have it put down, then you are responsible for it's death, even though I ok'ed it and paid for it. Some might be fallacies, some might be true, and there would be lots of grey areas. 

Like if someone steps out in front of your car, and you instinctively swerve to avoid them, and end up killing two cyclists. Were you to blame for swerving, or was the pedestrian to blame for not looking? Or is it a bit of both, with bad luck added to the mix?

Those are quite realistic problems of how blame can be assigned. The sort of things that are discussed in philosophy or ethics classes, and also often come up in movies as a way to justify the villains actions ("I have had to sacrifice a few people but it is for the greater good").

Quote

I suppose the most common case where it IS a fallacy is domestic violence. "You made me lose my temper".

That is much closer. This is classic "victim blaming" whereas I am thinking more of a case where the hero is turned into a sort of secondary victim by having the blame (wrongly) assigned to them.

Imagine the villain says: "Give me a dollar or I will shoot the kitten. The blood of this cute little kitty will be entirely on your hands. Can you live with that?"

Hero: "Well, yes, I can because it isn't my responsibility at all. I may have a moral duty to try and stop you. But if you decide to kill the kitten then it is you who kills the kitten not me. In fact, maybe I'll just walk away now."

[Phi for All]

There is a burden of guilt being shifted when one scapegoats, which is similar to a burden of proof. When you blame others for your own deeds, in essence you're claiming you aren't the one who has to prove he's innocent.