"You cannot punish me because you are not perfect"

Rationalizations: The Perfection Argument

Your daughter is caught stealing. You go to confront her and tell her that she is to be punished. She responds that you cannot punish her because you have done bad things too. “Who are you to punish me?” She asks. Many people attempt to use the reasoning that you yourself are not perfect, therefore you are not justified in punishing me. Or, that the punisher has to be a better person than the person being punished.

This is however, fallacious reasoning.

Limited Application—Connection with hypocrisy

This objection does have a limited validity. Its fallaciousness can be seen once this validity is explained. If I were arguing that my daughter is to be punished for her crime and that I am not to be punished for my crimes, then that would be inconsistent. For example, let’s say I stole when I was a kid. As long as I admit that what I did was wrong, there is nothing inconsistent with punishing my daughter for stealing when she is a kid. If however, I do not believe that what I did was wrong and I punish her for performing a similar act, then I am being hypocritical. However, if I acknowledge that what I did was wrong and that punishment would have been justified, then I am not being inconsistent in punishing my daughter.

Limited Application—Connection with Character

There also may be another limited application of this principle. It is connected to the belief that bad people are not good discerners of what is right and wrong. If it were to be shown that I was a bad person, then perhaps what I am punishing someone for is not in fact wrong.

However, even with this belief, this does not salvage the principle. First, if the person deserving of punishment believes that what he did was wrong, then connecting it with the character of the punisher is irrelevant. His act is still wrong and deserving of punishment. Second, the objection could be turned on the one who is to receive punishment because he may be a worse person and therefore even worse at discerning moral truths.

Objection #1: No one is perfect.

If the principle was true, then no one would be justified in punishing anybody. The court system would be an immoral thing to set up. Jurors deciding people’s fate would be evil. It would be the case that we should just let everyone run wild. Since this is not the case, the reasoning is fallacious.

Objection #2: It does not establish hypocrisy.

Simply because I got a tattoo as a kid or smoked cigarettes does not mean that I believe now that I was justified in performing those activities. One example of the use of this argument was in the show The Osbournes. Jack, who is Ozzy Osbourne's son, smokes and does drugs. Whenever Ozzy would yell at him for doing drugs, Jack would reply with, "You did drugs when you were younger. You are a hypocrite to tell me to not do any."

However, this response confuses the definition of “hypocrisy.” A hypocrite is one who says, “When I do X it is okay but when you do X, it is wrong.” Ozzy would be a hypocrite if he believed that when he did drugs as a young boy it was okay but wrong for his son. However, if he believes that it was wrong for him to do and wrong for his son to do, then he avoids hypocrisy. He can then tell his son to not do drugs and if he does them, he will be punished, despite the son’s sayings otherwise.

Conclusion

So, as is apparent, to argue that, “Person X cannot punish me because person X is not perfect” is fallacious reasoning. It is a rationalization that is used most likely because the wrongdoer will try whatever he can to avoid punishment. This is one of the ways of attempting to “neutralize” the person’s wrongdoing but it simply does not work. Despite its fallaciousness, people often yield to it like it is magically true. It is a false belief that has caused many wrongdoers to fail to get what they deserve.