Are ad hominem attacks legitimized by virtue ethics?

[brawnypandora0]

Aristotle promoted virtue ethics over the later theories of deontology and consequentialism. So since ethics becomes dependent upon an individual's character, does that make ad hominem attacks legitimate?

[el_koraco]

you smell

[brawnypandora0]

you smell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_nose

But this technology hasn't been developed yet.

[el_koraco]

and you're ugly!

[Legendary_Bibo]

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

[brawnypandora0]

and you're ugly!

What do looks have to do with character?

[cchhrriiss121212]

I see two problems with what you have written:
First, you have implied that what Aristotle promoted is the only correct view of ethics. There are infinite interpretations of ethical reasoning, so to assume that one version can be applied to the entire field of debate is unreasonable.
Second, you have a huge gap of reasoning in your second sentence. Ad hominem attacks are, by definition, completely useless to any debate as they are aimed at obscuring or avoiding the issue that is to be discussed. Perhaps you should explain what you mean by legitimate?

[earthpigg]

Aristotle promoted virtue ethics over the later theories of deontology and consequentialism. So since ethics becomes dependent upon an individual's character, does that make ad hominem attacks legitimate?

Aristotle (according to my elementary understanding) placed a heavy emphasis on the individual. Aristocracy as the ideal ruling body, and whatnot.

I suspect he would agree that ad hominem is ok - he largely lived in a world wherein the man advocating the idea will likely be the one implementing it.

Leonidas didn't say "hey, y'all go off to war", he said "hey, lets go to war with me leading you into battle." Given the difference, and ad hominem argument against (or for) the latter is entirely appropriate - the character of Leonidas being a crucial factor in the success or failure of the endeavor in question.

Similarly, arguing against any politicians position on something based on ad hominem is appropriate if that specific politician would be a key person in implementing it. Think of chairs of senate committees, for example, or EU public opinion on any given US president. If the vast majority think that President ______ has the character trait of being a ________, then we may as well regard him as if he was exactly that - that perception will have the power of reality for that vast majority that hold it.

[brawnypandora0]

If so, then most people in the world are Aristotelians.

[Legendary_Bibo]

if so, then most people in the world are aristotelians.

no u!

[Aquix]

Character like less intelligent? I can see that.

It sure doesn't belong in political debates, said the moonlanding conspirator, flat-earther denier.

[jrusso2]

In ethics we were always taught ad hominem attacks were the lowest form of argument.

[d3v1150m471c]

when in doubt...


man adhominem

[slackthumbz]

OP is an idiot...

Nope, doesn't seem to be a legitimate argument. It's just the human equivalent of one of our simian brethren flinging their fecal matter in a fit of frustration.

[Hyporeal]

The answer is an emphatic no. Making ethical judgments is not the same as making rational arguments. Your ethics might require that you honor your parents, but that does not mean you can appeal to authority. You might believe in the golden rule, but that does not legitimize tu quoque. You may attest that good cannot be accomplished by evil means but that does not allow you dismiss arguments from those you deem evil.

[brawnypandora0]

Lawyers do it all the time.

[Copper Bezel]

Yeah, trying to link virtue ethics, believing that someone is good because he or she meant well and regardless of the result, to believing that an idea is good because the person expressing it means well - that doesn't work.


when in doubt...


man adhominem


earthpigg already [Solved] this thread, but you made it awesome. = )

[krapp]

Aristotle promoted virtue ethics over the later theories of deontology and consequentialism.

How does Aristotle argue with Kant and J. S. Mill? Time machine?

[drawkcab]

No. The ad hominem fallacy, and all genetic fallacies, attempt to discredit the argument being made by identifying the argument with some characteristic of its source. The argument's validity depends on logic, not on the moral character of the one making the argument.

One might, however, doubt the veracity of a claim being made by someone of doubtful moral character.

Doubting the source of a claim and discounting the validity of an argument are two different things.

[Bandit]

I see two problems with what you have written:
First, you have implied that what Aristotle promoted is the only correct view of ethics. There are infinite interpretations of ethical reasoning, so to assume that one version can be applied to the entire field of debate is unreasonable.
Second, you have a huge gap of reasoning in your second sentence. Ad hominem attacks are, by definition, completely useless to any debate as they are aimed at obscuring or avoiding the issue that is to be discussed. Perhaps you should explain what you mean by legitimate?

Glad you came along.. I didnt know what the hell he was talking about...

[wizard10000]

Aristotle promoted virtue ethics over the later theories of deontology and consequentialism. So since ethics becomes dependent upon an individual's character, does that make ad hominem attacks legitimate?

Sure - I'll help you with your homework :D

I think the world would be a better place if everybody took a college-level course in critical thinking. Let me build my own straw man here -

Einstein's theory of relativity cannot be true because Einstein was a socialist.

Classic ad hominem argument which does absolutely nothing to address the point under debate, which in this example is Einstein's theory of relativity.

Is the ad hominem argument a legitimate rebuttal to Einstein's theory? I'd say no.

:D

I'd recommend looking up Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit as a quick five-minute read on logical fallacies - for somebody who's got an hour to kill here's a great read from a guy who taught a 200-level course in critical thinking. I think they should make this required reading in high school :D

Unit 2 on logical fallacies is particularly fascinating.

http://www.virtualsalt.com/think/

[t0p]

"X is a scum-bag; therefore everything he says or does is wrong." Yeah, that sounds about right.

Also, please remember that ethics are not universal. X the man-eater may be a virtuous, ethical person when he's hanging round with cannibals. But when he comes to London and pops into a restaurant for a nice helping of long-pig, people will consider him a right sicko.

[danbuter]

Aristotle promoted virtue ethics over the later theories of deontology and consequentialism. So since ethics becomes dependent upon an individual's character, does that make ad hominem attacks legitimate?

Could someone rewrite this into English?

[jhonan]

Could someone rewrite this into English?
I think the thread title should be: Are ad hominem attacks legitimized by virtue of ethics?

Asking the question is it fair to attack someone personally for a viewpoint they hold, because that viewpoint is based on that person's ethics. Which are personal. :)

[handy]

No. The ad hominem fallacy, and all genetic fallacies, attempt to discredit the argument being made by identifying the argument with some characteristic of its source. The argument's validity depends on logic, not on the moral character of the one making the argument.

One might, however, doubt the veracity of a claim being made by someone of doubtful moral character.

Doubting the source of a claim and discounting the validity of an argument are two different things.

What he said. ^

[earthpigg]

No. The ad hominem fallacy, and all genetic fallacies, attempt to discredit the argument being made by identifying the argument with some characteristic of its source. The argument's validity depends on logic, not on the moral character of the one making the argument.

One might, however, doubt the veracity of a claim being made by someone of doubtful moral character.

Doubting the source of a claim and discounting the validity of an argument are two different things.

I think, when it comes to academic discourse, you are absolutely right.

Nonetheless, when we are talking about Arguments of Policy made by folks that are both policy makers and/or policy implementers, it is entirely appropriate.

Empowering the Senate Committee on _______ to do _____ may sound great, but if the current and past 5 chairs of that committee all currently have, and have had, and are likely to continue to have ______ negative character trait, the policy being advocated may fall flat on its face regardless of how sound the Argument of Policy may be.

An example would be if a Congressman was advocating political contribution and lobbyist reform, and that same person wanted to be the one to appoint the relevant tsar. An ad hominem attack pointing out that the politician is corrupt and has a history of appointing people to posts based purely on self interest... is completely legitimate, and not a fallacy at all.

But, as I said, it is entirely cute and fuzzy and appropriate to identify ad hominem as "bad" in purely academic discourse because by the time academia reaches a consensus on any given topic, all the players in the policy making and policy implementation are likely to have changed.

The best example I can think of is The Clash of Civilizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash_of_Civilizations) from 1992. The man was dead by the time a Post-9/11 consensus was reached that the work was even worth reading by non-academicians, so any attack on the author is clearly moot - by the time the work was recognized, the man wasn't eligible to be an advisor to any Head of State by virtue of being 6 feet under.

Another example would be The Ugly American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_American) - A very thorough 1958 prediction of the entire US involvement in Vietnam that more folks probably should have read, but if the man stood up and said "...and now I want to be the right hand man of the Secretary of State" --- enter the relevance of ad hominem.

[Aquix]

The virtue of ethics only works if you follow one of the philosophies where the order of nature is that one class of people are meant to rule over the rest. If you believe in equality amongst human beings then the virtue is a clear fallacy. I think I remember Aristotle had some undesirable ideas about a social order, but then again, ancient greece definition of democracy did not include everyone.

[drawkcab]

An ad hominem attack pointing out that the politician is corrupt and has a history of appointing people to posts based purely on self interest... is completely legitimate, and not a fallacy at all.

But recognize that the "attack" you are describing ^^^ is not an instance of the ad hominem fallacy. Here you are merely describing an inductive argument in favor of a claim about a politician's character.

That is different than an ad hominem argument which confuses the validity of the politician's argument with a characteristic (usually negative) of the source of the argument, in this case the politician.

Valid inductive argument:

Premise: Politician X in situation Y has always done Z.
Conclusion: When put in situation Y again, politician X will likely do Z.

Ad Hominem Fallacy:

Premise: Politician X possesses characteristic Y which is bad.
Conclusion: Politician X's argument Z is invalid because he possesses Y.

The reason this is a fallacy is because the validity of argument Z does not depend on characteristic Y, or any other characteristic. The validity of the argument is a formal property of the argument itself and in no way rests on any personal characteristics of its source.

Trust me. I teach this stuff for a living. ( <--- positive ad hominem ;) )

[drawkcab]

The virtue of ethics only works if you follow one of the philosophies where the order of nature is that one class of people are meant to rule over the rest. If you believe in equality amongst human beings then the virtue is a clear fallacy.

There is no necessary connection between virtue ethics and a society structured by hierarchical class distinctions in Aristotle.

In the Nichomachean Ethics, the implication is that those human beings who have disordered and vicious souls would be better off in life if they served the virtuous. The idea is that since they cannot achieve self mastery, the best possible life for the wicked is to follow the dictates of the virtuous who have achieved self mastery and practical wisdom. Think of the relationship between recovering addict and sponsor/counselor.

Secondly, aristocracy simply means rule of the aristoi, or rule of the virtuous. If all members of the society possessed virtue, there would be no moral, and therefore no social, distinctions in the society.

[brawnypandora0]

So does this mean everyone who ignored the boy who cried wolf when there really was a wolf was immoral?

[el_koraco]

I think the thread title should be: Are ad hominem attacks legitimized by virtue of ethics?



Nope, virtue ethics is a branch of the discipline. Deontology and consequentialism others, they all differ in the approach to defining ethical behavior. In addition to the OP smelling, I shall decide to side with L. Wittgenstein's interpretation of ethics as a meaningless discipline, and therefore pronounce the whole thread invalid.

[athenroy]

Only in a Linux oriented forum could a debate such as this flourish! You wonder why Linux has a "Geeky" image! :lolflag:

[earthpigg]

But recognize that the "attack" you are describing ^^^ is not an instance of the ad hominem fallacy. Here you are merely describing an inductive argument in favor of a claim about a politician's character.

That is different than an ad hominem argument which confuses the validity of the politician's argument with a characteristic (usually negative) of the source of the argument, in this case the politician.

Valid inductive argument:

Premise: Politician X in situation Y has always done Z.
Conclusion: When put in situation Y again, politician X will likely do Z.

Ad Hominem Fallacy:

Premise: Politician X possesses characteristic Y which is bad.
Conclusion: Politician X's argument Z is invalid because he possesses Y.


Ya know what, that is a completely valid differentiation, and one that I agree with.


And moderators: Aren't you proud that we're using hypothetical situations instead of real ones that would violate the community guidelines? :)

[3Miro]

So does this mean everyone who ignored the boy who cried wolf when there really was a wolf was immoral?

There is one more distinction that drawkcab did not cover.

Suppose we are in court and person A testifies that he saw person B commit a crime. In absence of physical evidence, we are left only with the claim of person A. In that situation, s history of A being convicted of crimes and/or similar things are very relevant.

The people in the village had only the evidence of the call of the boy (they did not see the wolfs themselves). In the past, the "testimony" of the boy was in fact a lie. Therefore, the people in the village were justified to disbelieve and keep going about their own business.

In short, an attack toward a person's character is valid only if the that person's character is relevant in the discussion, that is, if the discussion is about the competence of that person or if that person uses his own character as support of his argument (although the latter is often times an appeal to fallacious authority anyway).

[earthpigg]

Trust me. I teach this stuff for a living.

You're totally busted, dude.

[drawkcab]

There is one more distinction that drawkcab did not cover.

[...]

In short, an attack toward a person's character is valid only if the that person's character is relevant in the discussion, that is, if the discussion is about the competence of that person or if that person uses his own character as support of his argument (although the latter is often times an appeal to fallacious authority anyway).

But here you are not challenging the validity of the argument, you are challenging the soundness of the argument, specifically the assumptions being made for the sake of the argument being made.

It's fair to ask for a further argument in support of the challenged premise, but it does not present a context in which an ad hominem argument is justified.

[wizard10000]

So does this mean everyone who ignored the boy who cried wolf when there really was a wolf was immoral?

No, because assuming the kid was lying was a valid inductive argument :D

[3Miro]

But here you are not challenging the validity of the argument, you are challenging the soundness of the argument, specifically the assumptions being made for the sake of the argument being made.

It's fair to ask for a further argument in support of the challenged premise, but it does not present a context in which an ad hominem argument is justified.

You are correct if we have something from the realm of science, however, in practice, we often times cannot apply the true scientific rigor to every situation in life, especially in the judicial system.

Personal testimony is probably the most unreliable form of evidence, however, it is used in court and often times it is the only type of evidence available. If I witness a crime, but had no way of filming it or gathering physical evidence, then the argument "person X is a criminal" relies solely on my say so. This could be sufficient in court, you can convict someone of a crime solely based upon my (or someone else's) testimony. However, when testimony is the only form of support for the argument, the character of the person making the testimony is relevant.

You can make the argument that nobody should be convicted of a crime without physical evidence, and it is a valid point. However, there are different levels of evidence. In the USA in criminal court, we criteria is "beyond reasonable doubt", however, in civil court the criteria is "is it more likely than not".



The people in the village had only the evidence of the call of the boy (they did not see the wolfs themselves). In the past, the "testimony" of the boy was in fact a lie. Therefore, the people in the village were justified to disbelieve and keep going about their own business.


You omitted this from your quotation, do you disagree that in this case the boy's history of being a lier is relevant.

[wizard10000]

...Trust me. I teach this stuff for a living. ( <--- positive ad hominem ;) )

Or argumentum ad verecundiam.

http://ebassist.com/forum/images/smilies/bolt.gif

http://ebassist.com/forum/images/smilies/grin.gif

[brawnypandora0]

Nope, virtue ethics is a branch of the discipline. Deontology and consequentialism others, they all differ in the approach to defining ethical behavior. In addition to the OP smelling, I shall decide to side with L. Wittgenstein's interpretation of ethics as a meaningless discipline, and therefore pronounce the whole thread invalid.

If ethics is meaningless, what's the point of having a legal system? Is murder inherently immoral, or are we now moral nihilists?

[drawkcab]

You are correct if we have something from the realm of science, however, in practice, we often times cannot apply the true scientific rigor to every situation in life, especially in the judicial system.

Personal testimony is probably the most unreliable form of evidence, however, it is used in court and often times it is the only type of evidence available. If I witness a crime, but had no way of filming it or gathering physical evidence, then the argument "person X is a criminal" relies solely on my say so. This could be sufficient in court, you can convict someone of a crime solely based upon my (or someone else's) testimony. However, when testimony is the only form of support for the argument, the character of the person making the testimony is relevant.


To speak plainly, you're confusing providing testimony with providing an argument.

All a fallacy does is generally denote a form of inference which is not truth-preserving.

An argument may be fallacious or valid (logical properties having to do with the argument's form) while statements of fact are either true or false (epistemological properties having to do with the statement's correspondence with the state of affairs that is the world).

[drawkcab]

If ethics is meaningless, what's the point of having a legal system? Is murder inherently immoral, or are we now moral nihilists?

A review of this thread should suffice as an answer to your query.

Ethics may not be meaningless but it is certainly irrelevant in a society which no longer remembers the basic questions, let alone any of the answers.

[el_koraco]

If ethics is meaningless, what's the point of having a legal system? Is murder inherently immoral, or are we now moral nihilists?

Now she's being serious. Wittgenstein meant more like in terms that ethics is meaningless as a philosophical discipline, not in terms of Nietzsche's repudiation of morality.

[3Miro]

To speak plainly, you're confusing providing testimony with providing an argument.

All a fallacy does is generally denote a form of inference which is not truth-preserving.

An argument may be fallacious or valid (logical properties having to do with the argument's form) while statements of fact are either true or false (epistemological properties having to do with the statement's correspondence with the state of affairs that is the world).

This is slowly becoming a waste of time and I think the main problem is that we argue, when in fact we agree.

Logic stands or fails on its own regardless of who is making the argument. In this case, attack at one's character is fallacious.

Testimony is based upon one's character. In this case, attack at one's character is relevant.

The boy who cried "wolf", provided a testimony not an argument. That was the meaning of my earlier post.

[Chronon]

The boy who cried wolf was not positing a logical argument. He was making a claim whose validity the villagers doubted. This isn't an ad hominem attack either since the boy's character was not used to short circuit an otherwise logical argument.

[3Miro]

The boy who cried wolf was not positing a logical argument. He was making a claim whose validity the villagers doubted. This isn't an ad hominem attack either since the boy's character was not used to short circuit an otherwise logical argument.

If you define "ad hominem attack" as only referring to logical arguments, then it is in all cases a fallacy.

If you define "ad hominem attack" as simply an attack at someone's character regardless of the situation, then it is may or may not be a fallacy.

Wikipedia states that "ad hominem attack" refers most commonly to logical arguments, but not always.

(Note: the sentence above is an example of fallacious appeal to authority :D ... or maybe not)