The only disagreement I might have is with some element of the first commandment. In the case of a person being clearly dishonest in putting forth an argument (which happen far too often) his character, or lack thereof, is a relevant issue. Therefore sometimes ad hominem is not a fallacy.
Hmm…what concerns me about this is it doesn’t have a limiting principle, which I would suggest we see in the Left today. How many times have you heard them say things like “That person isn’t even worthy of debate because their opinions are so abhorrent”.
Instead, I’d suggest the strategy of destroying the argument and thereby unveiling the character of the person making that argument.
What I am speaking of is when a person is clearly engaging in dishonest argumentation. In these instances, their character and their arguments become one. What happens on the Left today is the other person’s character gets attack without his argument even being engaged. That is something entirely different.
If the argumentation is dishonest, isn’t it enough to demonstrate this? If the argumentation is shown to be dishonest, surely the character of the person can then be easily inferred – there’s no need to attack it directly.
Sure, I can give you enough examples just from within popular orthodox Catholic circles to last you from now until the middle of your next life. But in the interests of brevity, I shall restrict myself to only a couple. First, I’ll cite one of many calumnious screeds from apologist Mark Shea. He characterizes support for the application of capital punishment (still a legitimately Catholic position despite Pope Francis’ efforts to confuse the faithful on that point) as “How many people do we get to kill?” as though support for the death penalty necessarily implies some kind of bloodlust. In fact, in other places he characterizes it as being bloodthirsty. An epithet he lobbed directly at me. This is far from a one off. He has spent at least the last twelve years.This is more than just a flawed argument. It bespeaks of a character problem, and a rather serious one at that. And such examples of bad character need to be called out as such.
Another is one I deal with in detail regarding then Fr. Robert Barron’s ignorant arguments against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I say this is an example of bad character because it is clear to anyone who understands both the Catholic moral principles regarding such actions and the actual circumstances within which President Truman made that decision, he doesn’t know what he is talking about and is relying on the ignorance of his viewers.
I wrote a guest post back in 2015 on that very issue for The American Catholic weblog.
Now, there is something of a lengthy lead-in to his video where I set it within the context of this kind of character problem within prominent Catholic circles. But I think I make it understandable as to why I do that.
I’m afraid I don’t find either of these as compelling arguments for a legitimate use of Ad Hominmem.
Regarding Mark, I would have thought calling out his Ad Hominmem (Bulverism even!) would have been enough, rather than simply building on his fallacy and pouring more gas onto the fire.
Regarding Bishop Barron, I don’t see evidence that he is “being clearly dishonest in putting forth an argument”, and even if he did, I still don’t see how attacking his character would advance things.
Not only that, as I mentioned above, I don’t see a limiting principle, and that concerns me. Without a clear limiting principle, it just means that, if I perceive someone to be being dishonest, I am free to start mudslinging. This is a privilege I think far too many people would be willing to grant themselves.
“…you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly”
– C.S. Lewis, Essay Collection and Other Short Pieces, pg. 588
The quote you cite from Lewis does not disagree with my position at all. I am not saying that you don’t attack the argument. I am looking at this from a matter of both/and as opposed to either/or. And Lewis does as well in the above quoted citation. Otherwise he would have said “instead of” as opposed to “before”. Calling a person who makes a dishonest argument dishonest or one does so in mean spirited way mean spirited is not only appropriate (of course there maybe times it is prudent to hold fire) but at times obligatory as a matter of justice. Act like one, get called one, I say.
The only disagreement I might have is with some element of the first commandment. In the case of a person being clearly dishonest in putting forth an argument (which happen far too often) his character, or lack thereof, is a relevant issue. Therefore sometimes ad hominem is not a fallacy.
Hmm…what concerns me about this is it doesn’t have a limiting principle, which I would suggest we see in the Left today. How many times have you heard them say things like “That person isn’t even worthy of debate because their opinions are so abhorrent”.
Instead, I’d suggest the strategy of destroying the argument and thereby unveiling the character of the person making that argument.
What I am speaking of is when a person is clearly engaging in dishonest argumentation. In these instances, their character and their arguments become one. What happens on the Left today is the other person’s character gets attack without his argument even being engaged. That is something entirely different.
Can you give an example? I think that’d help.
If the argumentation is dishonest, isn’t it enough to demonstrate this? If the argumentation is shown to be dishonest, surely the character of the person can then be easily inferred – there’s no need to attack it directly.
Sure, I can give you enough examples just from within popular orthodox Catholic circles to last you from now until the middle of your next life. But in the interests of brevity, I shall restrict myself to only a couple. First, I’ll cite one of many calumnious screeds from apologist Mark Shea. He characterizes support for the application of capital punishment (still a legitimately Catholic position despite Pope Francis’ efforts to confuse the faithful on that point) as “How many people do we get to kill?” as though support for the death penalty necessarily implies some kind of bloodlust. In fact, in other places he characterizes it as being bloodthirsty. An epithet he lobbed directly at me. This is far from a one off. He has spent at least the last twelve years.This is more than just a flawed argument. It bespeaks of a character problem, and a rather serious one at that. And such examples of bad character need to be called out as such.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2016/09/just-because-something-is-not-a-binding-dogma.html
Another is one I deal with in detail regarding then Fr. Robert Barron’s ignorant arguments against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I say this is an example of bad character because it is clear to anyone who understands both the Catholic moral principles regarding such actions and the actual circumstances within which President Truman made that decision, he doesn’t know what he is talking about and is relying on the ignorance of his viewers.
I wrote a guest post back in 2015 on that very issue for The American Catholic weblog.
http://the-american-catholic.com/2015/08/13/father-barron-and-the-bomb/
Now, there is something of a lengthy lead-in to his video where I set it within the context of this kind of character problem within prominent Catholic circles. But I think I make it understandable as to why I do that.
I’m afraid I don’t find either of these as compelling arguments for a legitimate use of Ad Hominmem.
Regarding Mark, I would have thought calling out his Ad Hominmem (Bulverism even!) would have been enough, rather than simply building on his fallacy and pouring more gas onto the fire.
Regarding Bishop Barron, I don’t see evidence that he is “being clearly dishonest in putting forth an argument”, and even if he did, I still don’t see how attacking his character would advance things.
Not only that, as I mentioned above, I don’t see a limiting principle, and that concerns me. Without a clear limiting principle, it just means that, if I perceive someone to be being dishonest, I am free to start mudslinging. This is a privilege I think far too many people would be willing to grant themselves.
The quote you cite from Lewis does not disagree with my position at all. I am not saying that you don’t attack the argument. I am looking at this from a matter of both/and as opposed to either/or. And Lewis does as well in the above quoted citation. Otherwise he would have said “instead of” as opposed to “before”. Calling a person who makes a dishonest argument dishonest or one does so in mean spirited way mean spirited is not only appropriate (of course there maybe times it is prudent to hold fire) but at times obligatory as a matter of justice. Act like one, get called one, I say.