Can the Use of the «Double Fault» Help or Prevent Changing a Recipient’s Minds?

Abstract

This paper pursues different interests: argumentation analysis, pragmatics of interaction, and climate ethics. It is commonly understood that the “two wrongs” scheme is connected to the ad personam (Walton, Reed and Macagno, 2008, 160). That rhetorical figure can also be seen in overlap with “whataboutism” and the “Tu quoque”. What is of particular interest for me is a version of it taking place in the discussion of climate change. Let us consider the following move: “Why should I follow X when X calls for a ban on fossil fuels, when he/she/they frequently take the plane for conferences and vacations?” First, I will want to clarify the meaning of the variant of the figure, focusing on the “two wrongs” formulation. Secondly, I will discuss if it can be rejected most of the times or not. Third, there is a substantial interest involved; climate advocates are supposed to be “pure” in their actions.