The Language of Argument

3 1 0

C H A P T E R 1 5 ■ F a l l a c i e s o f R e l e v a n c e

Cliff’s­attack­might­or­might­not­be­justified.­If­the­only­reason­why­Norm­

favors­normal­relations­between­the­United­States­and­Cuba­is­that­this­

would­enable­Norm­to­make­more­money,­then­Cliff’s­ad­hominem­attack­

is­well­founded.­But­if­Norm’s­real­reason­for­saying­what­he­does­is­that­

he­honestly­believes­that­normal­relations­would­be­beneficial­both­to­the­

United­States­and­to­Cuba,­then­Norm’s­position­does­not­depend­on­any­

lack­of­integrity.­In­that­case,­Cliff’s­attack­is­not­well­founded,­even­if­it­so­

happens­that­Norm­would­profit­from­normal­relations.

Whether­justified­or­not,­ad­hominem­arguments­of­this­third­variety­can­

be­called­dismissers,­because­they­dismiss­the­speaker­as­untrustworthy­and­

unreliable.­Their­point­is­not­to­deny­the­truth­of­the­claim­or­the­speaker ’s­

right­to­say­it.­Instead,­a­dismisser­is­supposed­to­show­why­the­fact­that­

this­speaker­supports­a­claim­is­not­a­good­reason­to­believe­that­claim­(or­to­

deny­it,­for­that­matter).

These­three­variations­are­all­ad­hominem­arguments­because­they­start­

from­premises­about­the­person’s­character­or­status.­Where­they­differ­is­

in­their­conclusions:­Deniers­conclude­that­a­claim­is­untrue­or­that­an­argu-

ment­is­unsound­or­weak.­Silencers­conclude­that­someone­lacks­the­right­to­

speak­in­a­certain­context.­Dismissers­conclude­that­someone­is­untrustwor-

thy­or­unreliable.­Each­can­be­either­justified­or­unjustified,­so­ad­hominems­

come­in­six­kinds­that­can­be­diagrammed­like­this:

Ad Hominem Arguments Justified Not Justified

Deniers Louie, the hired perjurer Shabby protesters

Silencers Tad if he is not a legislator Tad if he is a legislator

Dismissers Cliff’s reply if Norm lacks Cliff’s reply if Norm

integrity does not lack integrity

What­logicians­usually­call­ad­hominem­fallacies­are­unjustified­deniers.­

Even­when­the­premises­of­such­an­argument­are­true,­they­are­irrelevant­to­

the­conclusion.­That­makes­them­fallacies­of­relevance.­Once­you­get­used­to­

spotting­ad­hominem­fallacies,­they­seem­common­and­obvious.

When­assessing­an­ad­hominem­argument,­the­first­step­is­to­determine­

whether­its­conclusion­is­about­someone’s­right­to­speak,­about­someone’s­

reliability,­or­about­the­truth,­soundness,­or­strength­of­what­is­claimed.­The­

second­step­is­to­determine­whether­its­premises­provide­adequate­justifica-

tion­for­its­conclusion.­These­steps­will­enable­you­to­place­the­argument­in­

the­above­table,­but­they­will­often­be­neither­easy­nor­obvious.­Although­

perjurers­for­hire­almost­always­lie,­most­people­exhibit­some­middling­de-

gree­of­reliability.­When­people­are­known­for­passing­on­rumors­without­

checking­their­truth,­this­might­be­a­reason­to­doubt­what­they­say­when­

they­pass­on­yet­another­rumor­(even­if­it­is­not­a­reason­to­believe­that­what­

they­say­is­false).­In­assessing­what­they­say,­it­would­be­best­to­look­for­ad-

ditional­evidence.­If­none­is­available,­then­we­need­to­ask­how­often­their­

testimony­is­true­on­matters­of­this­kind.­Only­by­careful­inspection­of­indi-

vidual­cases­can­we­determine­the­strength­of­such­ad­hominem­arguments.

97364_ch15_ptg01_307-322.indd 310 15/11/13 11:04 AM

some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,

affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.