Playing the man or playing the ball?
Not so long
ago the mayor of my town organised a meeting with the inhabitants because a
serious incident had taken place here. Also some other authorities that were
responsible for the incident were present. At the beginning of the meeting the
rules were established. One rule was “Don’t say ‘you are stupid but it is
stupid that ...’ ” Actually this rule referred to one of the most important
fallacies in discussions: The argumentum
ad hominem. Someone who uses it attacks his or her opponent as such and not
what s/he says. In sports terms we say that you play the man instead of the
ball, and – like in sports – in the meeting in my town the rule was set in
order to keep the meeting decent and fair and especially in order to avoid
verbal aggression. For a public meeting this is important, but it’s not the
real reason that you must avoid the argumentum
ad hominem. The real reason is that it is a fallacy and that an argument is
only good or bad because of its content and not because it is uttered by a
person with such and such qualities. Bullying a person does not disqualify the
truth of his or her claims.
Playing-the-man
arguments often go this way:
- “You say
so because you are a socialist” (Ignoring that the person concerned presents
figures that show that the measured proposed is bad for poor people; you should
attack the figures, not the membership of the socialist party).
- He is not
a Christian, so it is not surprising that he committed the murder (As if non-Christians
or non-religious persons in general do not have morals).
- He looks
like a tramp so he cannot be trusted (As if a suit and a black tie or a neat
dress makes you more reliable; but alas, many people think so. In a discussion
it can mean that you believe a dressed up person sooner rather than a “tramp”;
or just the other way round, depending on your psychological make-up).
- “How can
you think so, you are only an ordinary wo/man.”
The essence
of the argumentum ad hominem is that
we don’t judge a person on the arguments produced in the discussion but – actually
or openly – on his or her character, morals, appearance, reputation or anything
else that is the supposed reason behind the argument; so actually the person is
judged on our prejudices. It can happen, of course, that someone produces a
socialist argument, because s/he wants to follow the party line in order to
make career within the party; or the tramp lies because it is the only way to
survive; etc. But this can only be a sound argument if it has been proved to be the real reasons of the
socialist, tramp etc. Otherwise it has nothing to do with the arguments produced.
A fallacy related to the argumentum ad hominem is “guilt by association”. For example, you
make a certain claim and another person, who happens to be a crook, makes the
same claim; so your claim must be false just because of that. Two weeks ago I
discussed in my blog already a special example of this fallacy, the reductio
ad Hitlerum, like that you are a vegetarian and Hitler was a vegetarian
as well, so it is bad to be a vegetarian. Or another example of the “guilt by
association”: John cannot be trusted because he has criminal friends (does just this makes him untrustworthy?). The
logical inverse of the guilt by association exists as well: the honour by
association fallacy. For instance, she must be a feminist, for she comes from
Sweden (supposing, as I do, that feminism is a positive value). Another related
fallacy is the tu quoque argument, or
the you-also fallacy, but I suppose that now you are smart enough to find out
what it involves. As such I hope that these blogs about fallacies have made you
smarter and that I have drawn your attention to the way you can be tricked in
discussions. And you’ll certainly be smarter after having read Aristotle’s Sophistical
Refutations.
No comments:
Post a Comment