The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Argumentum ad hominem is translated as “argument against the person.” The abusive form of this fallacy occurs when name-calling, slander or insults directed at a particular person are interjected into an argument. These are often used in order to manipulate the listener or audience. Usually, evidence or solid premises are substituted with personal attacks. Yet, on occasion, good premises are augmented with name-calling or derogatory terms. This is purely a psychological technique. It has nothing to do with solid reasoning or logical argumentation.
Here are some examples of the abusive ad hominem fallacy:
1. Candidate Greenstein is a bleeding-heart, unpatriotic liberal. Therefore, we cannot trust him as our leader.
2. Professor Searle is a real jerk! You should never take his class.
3. How can we trust a rabid Communist to teach our children about American politics?
One encounters this fallacy quite regularly in political campaigns and in radio talk shows. Even though the abusive ad hominem fallacy can be entertaining and even effective, it still relies on personal attacks rather than solid premises. It is for this reason that this argument should be avoided.
The ad hominem circumstantial fallacy, like the abusive version, seeks to attack the arguer rather than the argument. However, instead of resorting to personal attacks, an attempt is made to discredit the arguer’s position by implying that he or she has impure or selfish motives. For example:
1. You should not listen to Professor Miller’s arguments for faculty salary increases. The only reason he is arguing for a pay raise is because he himself will benefit from it.
In this example we see that, rather than his actual arguments being examined or critiqued, Professor Miller himself is being attacked. It claims that Miller has selfish motives for arguing in a certain manner, and because of this his arguments should be dismissed. The circumstantial fallacy does not only attack arguers and dismiss their specific arguments, as in the example above, but it can also be used to discredit any position or stance that one might hold. For example:
2. Harry was quite sure that Julie had only accepted his invitation to dinner because she felt sorry for him. This was probably the only reason she had been friendly with him in the first place.
3. It is obvious that Aunt Sue’s Christmas gift to Emma was given with ulterior motives. She gave her an airline gift certificate, but she might as well have just asked Emma to come babysit.
4. I will not accept the administration’s arguments for war. Clearly, the only reason the President wants to be in the Middle East is to secure natural resources.
In all of these examples, the arguments or actions alone are not taken seriously because certain circumstances have supposedly corrupted the source of each argument or action. We need to remember that not all arguments are presented with ulterior motives and that arguments should, if possible, be analyzed by themselves, apart from their sources.
This fallacy is committed when one argues that if a certain philosopher, scientist, or any other great thinker of the past were alive today, then he or she would engage in an ad hominem attack. This fallacy is heard quite often on college campuses—coming from students and professors alike. For example:
1. Person A: (Offers an interpretation or idea about an issue.)
Person B: (Responding) If Nietzsche were here, he would call you an idiot!
2. Person A: (States a critique of Plato’s philosophy.)
Person B: (Responding) If Plato were here, he would say that your mind is not fit for learning and that you should simply be a laborer.
3. Person A: (Questions and objects to a Freudian idea.)
Person B: (Responding) Well, Freud would say that you are a sexually repressed jackass!
The post mortem ad hominem attack always uses an authority figure of the past (quite often someone who is dead, hence post mortem) to attack a person, idea, or argument. This fallacy is very easy to recognize. It almost always begins with, “If [person x] were here, he/she would say . . .” This is fallacious because of the impossibility of being able to know what someone would say here and now, in our current historical and social context. We have no way of knowing what Plato, Nietzsche, or any other great thinker of the past might say if they were engaged in a philosophical discussion with someone at the present time. Even if we feel that we are an authority on a great thinker, this does not mean that we know what his/her exact response to an idea, issue, or argument would be today.
Argumentum ad verecundiam is often translated from the Latin as “argument from authority.” This fallacy relies on a false authority figure as support for a particular claim. A false authority is one who has little or no expertise in the particular context in which he/she is being used. The ad verecundiam argument can be found quite regularly in advertising. Often, celebrities, entertainers, or athletes will promote certain items or products of which they have no in-depth knowledge. For example, one might encounter a movie star selling pharmaceuticals, or a country singer promoting a politician.
A legitimate authority is one who is an expert in the appropriate field. For example, when a doctor states that a certain medication is needed, the patient should seriously consider this advice. Or, if a professor of mathematics states that an algebraic equation ought to be done in a certain way, the student should listen. If, however, one’s doctor is preaching about religion, or if one’s mathematics professor is pontificating about politics, both would be considered illegitimate, or at least questionable, authorities.
There are many other examples of the ad verecundiam fallacy. For example:
1. According to the bus driver, UC Berkeley is not a good university. So, you should reconsider attending in the Fall.
2. I know that democracy is the best form of government because my pastor said so.
3. My history professor gave a wonderful lecture on atheism. He is an expert, so he must be right.
In all of these examples false authorities are appealed to. When creating good arguments authorities may be used, however, they should be experts in the related field. Also, with this in mind, one must always remember that even experts can be wrong.
In ancient Rome, a rod called a baculum was carried by each leader to symbolize his power. Named after this practice, the argumentum ad baculum fallacy is also known as the argument from the rod, or often it is simply referred to as the argument from fear.
The ad baculum argument uses threats, punishment or scare tactics to convince the listener to accept the conclusion of the argument. In short, fear replaces or is added to the premises or conclusion in order to psychologically manipulate the intended audience. The ad baculum fallacy usually takes the following form:
Premise: Arguer presents his/her position, which includes threats or scare tactics.
Conclusion: The arguer’s position must be taken seriously or else harm may ensue.
Yet the ad baculum argument can also be found in many other forms. The common factor is always the appeal to fear. For example:
1. Sue, if you don’t go out with me, remember that I know where your family lives.
2. If we don’t take care of the terrorists, then our children and grandchildren will live in constant threat of being attacked.
3. No matter where you live, you are never safe from West Nile Virus. Therefore, you should buy the new West Nile Virus protective lotion available at your local drug store.
The appeal to fear can be a very powerful and effective form of argumentation. Politicians, preachers, and parents love to use ad baculum arguments. We must remember, however, that threats and scare tactics do not constitute solid premises.
This fallacy occurs when solid premises are replaced with the fact that a belief is well known. It is sometimes referred to as the every child knows fallacy because it can include statements like, “even a child knows this,” or, “this is so obvious that even a child would recognize it.” Often the arguer will even appeal to “everyone” in his or her premises. However, the fact that something is widely accepted as true does not establish the truth of a conclusion. Here are some variations of this fallacy:
1. The earth is millions of years old. How do I know this? Because everyone knows this!
2. Every person is created equally. This is confirmed by the fact that everyone acknowledges this truth.
3. Even a small child can recognize morality and immorality. So, one cannot act as if any behavior is morally ambiguous!
4. Come on, everyone knows that Governor Wilkins is the best candidate for the position.
5. Of course you should accept the promotion! I can hardly believe you’re asking for advice. We all know that money improves the quality of life.
As demonstrated in these examples, the arguer committing this fallacy uses an appeal to common knowledge rather than providing solid evidence for a claim. While this fallacy is heard everyday—it is indeed the backbone of peer pressure and the latest cultural trends—we must remember its inherent faulty reasoning.
The genetic fallacy is an argument that assumes that a statement, position, or idea must be flawed if the source of the statement, position, or idea is flawed (or believed to be flawed). Often the genetic fallacy is an attempt to dismiss or refute another’s position based solely on the origin of the position. The genetic fallacy usually has the following form:
Premise: x originated from y.
Conclusion: x must have similarities to y and therefore cannot be taken seriously.
This argument assumes that x is like y (presumably negative) simply because it came from y. This is flawed reasoning. Consider these examples of the genetic fallacy:
1. Why should we liberals not listen to Mr. Daniels? Because, Mr. Daniels is from a very conservative town in the Midwest.
2. I will not vote for Schroeder. Everyone knows she is German, and we all know German history. No anti-Semitic candidates for me!
In these examples, people are dismissed based on the erroneous assumption that they necessarily share certain negative (or perceived as negative) characteristics with their places of origin.
We must remember that a person or position should never be dismissed solely on the basis of origination. A position or argument should be judged on the basis of its strength or validity, not on its source.
Argumentum ad populum, or argument from the people, is a fallacy that appeals to a group of people’s beliefs, tastes or values. The people appealed to can be a small group, such as an individual clique or church group, or it can be a large group of people such as Republicans, Baptists, or feminists. The argumentum ad populum fallacy states that because a group holds a particular belief, attitude or value, this must lend support to the correctness of that belief, attitude or value. Also, the ad populum argument often claims that because the group is a certain way, the listener should accept the group’s manner or action—or at least consider it as valid. For example:
1. The Southern Baptist Convention holds belief x. Therefore, you should hold belief x.
2. The Democratic Party endorses candidate Fuller for president. Because you are a registered Democrat, you should support candidate Fuller.
3. Our family has always acted in manner x. Since you are part of this family you should act in manner x as well.
In these examples, a group is appealed to as the authority on a particular issue. The fallacy occurs in assuming that the group is correct. Often the opinions of groups can be wrong. Consider outdated scientific and mythological beliefs. Consider forms of racism, sexism, and fascism practiced by many groups. Simply because a group of people hold a certain set of beliefs to be correct, this does not in any way imply the accurateness of these beliefs.
Argumentum ad populum is also known as the democratic fallacy. In a democracy, laws are passed and officials are given offices by the consensus of the largest number of people. However, simply because a large group of voters believe one course of action to be the best, this does not ensure that the vote of the majority is necessarily correct or right.
Beliefs, attitudes, and values need to be closely examined separately from the groups that support them. No matter who or how many people hold a certain belief, their advocacy does not prove its correctness.
This fallacy is an argument that appeals to tradition or custom as justification for its conclusion. Traditions and customs can be admirable and are sometimes helpful when making decisions and formulating arguments. However, these alone do not provide solid premises for an argument. For example:
1. You should vote for a Republican. Your father and his father were both dedicated Republicans, so you should be too.
2. Mother to daughter: Our family has been Roman Catholic for many generations. How can you even consider leaving the church?
3. It has always been our custom to treat women this way. How can you challenge our customs?
4. Man: How can you be sure that your religious text is accurate?
Priest: Because our tradition tells us that it is.
In each of these examples an appeal to tradition is found. The error in appealing solely to tradition is this: tradition by itself is not infallible. There have been many defective traditions (not to mention unjust and harmful ones). Simply because an idea or way of life has been a tradition, this does not guarantee that it is correct.
Tu quoque is translated from the Latin as “you too.” This fallacy is often used as a response to a particular claim, argument or suggestion. The tu quoque fallacy occurs when one charges another with hypocrisy or inconsistency in order to avoid taking the other’s position seriously. For example:
1. Mother: You should stop smoking. It’s harmful to your health.
Daughter: Why should I listen to you? You started smoking when you were sixteen!
In this example, the daughter commits the tu quoque fallacy. She dismisses her mother’s argument because she believes her mother is speaking in a hypocritical manner. While the mother may indeed be inconsistent, this does not invalidate her argument. Liars, manipulators, and even hypocritical parents can create good arguments. As with the genetic fallacy, one should not dismiss an argument based on its source. Consider these examples:
2. Father: You should not drink until you are twenty-one. It’s unsafe and it’s illegal.
Son: How can I take you seriously? I know for a fact that you drank when you were under age!
3. Teacher: One should always recycle paper, plastic and glass products. It’s good for the earth and it’s good for future generations.
Student: Ha! I saw you throw your soda bottle in the trash after lunch! Why should we listen to someone who doesn’t practice what she preaches?
As critical thinkers, we must consider the argument itself, separate from its source. This is often hard to do. In any case, the argument must be left to stand or fall on its own, regardless of hypocrisy or inconsistency on the part of the arguer.
This fallacy assumes that because an unethical act has been committed, committing the same act again will somehow correct the initial unethical behavior. Simply repeating wrong behavior does not make it right. Like the tu quoque fallacy, the two wrongs make a right fallacy is often used to rationalize undesirable conduct. For example:
1. You took my sister’s life, now I will take your sister’s life.
2. Sharon: Why do you keep lying to your husband?
Amanda: Because he has been lying to me for years.
3. Jim: How can you live with yourself, knowing that you have killed five people?
Gene: The state kills people everyday; it’s called the death penalty!
4. Alex: Aren’t you going to return the wallet you found?
Harvey: Why should I? When I lost my wallet, no one returned mine!
In all of these examples an assumption is made that unethical behavior is somehow justified because others previously engaged in the same conduct. We must remember that this type of argumentation is seriously flawed. Mimicking another’s actions does not justify one’s own behavior.
This fallacy gets its name from a practice once used in hunting. In order to hone their dogs’ tracking skills, hunters would drag a herring across the hunting path, creating a distracting smell that might lead the dogs away from the correct path. The hunters would then train the dogs to avoid the distracting smell and to follow only the scent that they were instructed to follow. Like this practice, the red herring fallacy incorporates a distraction—an irrelevant issue—in order to divert attention away from the topic under discussion. For example:
1. Lawyer: Your honor, I know that my client murdered the bank teller. However, my client should not receive the maximum penalty. She was abandoned as a child, abused in foster homes, homeless by the age of ten, and she is currently addicted to drugs and alcohol. She is already suffering a great deal. She deserves mercy.
In this example, the lawyer incorporates irrelevant issues in order to divert the judge’s attention away from the crime. These issues may be persuasive, however they are irrelevant to the topic at hand: murder. The hardships of the defendant’s life do not change the fact that she murdered someone. (In addition to a red herring, this example is also an ad misericordiam fallacy.)
Consider these examples:
2. Police officer: Why do you have cocaine in your back pocket?
Man: I just got out of prison last night. I can’t go back!
Police officer: Please answer my question.
Man: That is a nice wristwatch! Where did you get it?
3. Wife: I cannot believe that you forgot Valentine’s Day again.
Husband: Did I tell you how beautiful you look in that dress?
4. Student: Professor, you stated that you believe our political system is profoundly flawed. Will you please explain this?
Professor: Your question reminds me of a trip I once took to Ecuador . . . (The professor goes on to tell a story without answering the question.)
In all of these examples an irrelevant issue is incorporated into the discussion in order to divert attention away from the topic at hand. This is precisely the goal of the red herring fallacy.
Crumena is Latin for a purse that stores money. The argumentum ad crumenam assumes that wealth, money, or possessions are the measure of the correctness of an argument. For example:
1. We should carefully consider Senator Montgomery’s political position. He was a very successful entrepreneur before he became a senator.
2. Ruth must be doing something right. Just look at all the nice clothes she has.
3. Bill Gates dropped out of college and now he is one of the wealthiest people alive. He must know what he is talking about.
In all of these examples it is assumed that a person’s position is somehow more correct due to the wealth or possessions that he or she has. However, simply because one has a great deal of money, this does not ensure the validity of his or her stance on politics, relationships, or any other matter.
The argumentum ad misericordiam is also known as the appeal to pity. It is a fallacy that appeals to emotions rather than providing solid evidence or facts to support its claim. By evoking pity, the arguer hopes to persuade the audience or listener to accept his or her conclusion. For example:
1. Boyfriend: You shouldn’t break up with me.
Girlfriend: Why?
Boyfriend: Because the thought of losing you hurts so much.
In this example, the boyfriend is trying to evoke a sense of pity in his girlfriend so that she might stay with him. However, this is not a logical reason for staying with someone. Simply feeling sorry for another is no reason to agree with his or her claim.
Consider these examples:
2. Come on, I need you to lie for me. If you don’t I will lose my job, my wife, and my kids.
3. Sue: Let’s go to the philosophy lecture on Monday night.
Brad: I cannot go; I have to do homework.
Sue: If you don’t go then I’ll have to walk home alone in the dark. Are you sure you won’t go?
4. Professor Dreyfus, please reconsider the grade you gave me on my final. If I don’t get an “A,” then I won’t be able to get into graduate school.
In these examples, appeals to pity are made. Rather than providing good reasons in support of the claims, the arguer tries to arouse an emotional response. The ad misericordiam argument is often quite effective. However, we must be careful not to allow emotional responses to replace clear and coherent reasoning.