spazz

I read an interesting article in a magzine that suggested that ad hominem attacks could be used against an author's of someone who develpos moraly theory.

An example the author gave was as follows: " I am looking for the finest auto mechanic in my city, it is irrelevant to consider his personal life as part of my decision-making process. He may drink too much,he may beat his wife, he may starve his children: yet the fact still remains that heis the best mechanic around. The disorders of his personal life may bear no relationship to the quality of hisautomotive repairs whatsoever. Just so, a philosopher may advanceany number of theories to which all details of is personal excesses are entirely relevant."

So if a person claims to have insight on morals or ethics do you think their personal lives should be taken into account?

Philosoft

All strong arguments ought to have independent merit. If a philosopher of questionable morals makes a moral argument that has strong independent merit, the argument itself stands though the credibility of the philosopher decreases. Likewise, if the strength of the argument rests largely on the credibility of the philosopher, the argument will likely not survive an ad hom against the philosopher.

AnthonyAdams45

Say you run an ad for a babysitter. An applicant arrives, making a careful well-thought-out case for him or her self. Demonstrates a facility for communicating with children and your child in particular. Seems sensitive to children's moods. Is knowledgeable about first aid and children's fads. Their argument for being hired is flawless.

However, the person in question is a child molester. So an attack on their character instead of their argument is appropriate.

Thus, I would say that an ad hominem on the author of a moral theory is important only if the author claims to be morally perfect, but is not. That's seems to be it.

The Other Michael

hello AnthonyAdams45,

Maintaining the physical, mental and emotional safety of the children is part of the job requirement, so rejecting the person based on their status as a child molestor would not be an ad hom, but rather a rejection for not meeting the standards for the job.

Rejecting them because of their prediliction for pictures of poker-playing dogs painted on black velvet would be an irrelevant attack on the person.

cheers,
Michael

Kachana

An ad hominem attack would not be a valid one since the merits of the moral theory ought to stand or fail irrespective of the philosopher's own actions.

However, if the moral theory made some sort of claim that anyone who understood it would automatically, or very likely become moral, having seen its inherent value or suchlike, then an ad hominem would be justified since in this instance it serves to falsify one of the claims of the moral theory.

AnthonyAdams45

Then, just to be sure I understand, an ad hominem argument is to be understood as an irrelevant attack on the person who made the argument as opposed to attacks made on the person who made the argument which are relevant? And how shall I know the difference?

red robot

I believe you should instead be interpreting it "an ad hominem is to be understood as irrelevant (to the argument) as opposed to attacks made on the argument which are relevant." The special case is where the author of the moral argument claims to be a living example of perfect morality. In that case, and attack on the man is an attack on the argument. (?)

Koyaanisqatsi

An ad hominen "attack" is more along the lines of, "You can't be a good President, because you like watching Hee Haw."

The fallacy comes from the "because" part bearing no relevance to the activities, competence or elements in question (i.e., being President); the inference being that the person is an idiot because of his choice of programs.

In other words, one has nothing to do with the other (and vice versa).

As to the OP, I'm somewhat at a loss to fully address it, since the question of why it is ok to use ad hominen against a moral philosopher was never addressed, merely asserted without cause or explanation. The analogy of the mechanic in no way applies, since the very same things can be said of the philosopher.

Just because Freud was a coke addict does not in any way negate his deconstruction of the human mind, for example. It only serves as irrelevant sidetrack (the point of ad hominen and why it's a fallacy) from any salient issues Freud may (or may not) have offered.

Now, I would argue (and have, often) that had the philosopher in question stated from the outset that they are a christian cult member, for example, then their bias may certainly be relevant (i.e., "You can't offer a truly objective voice regarding morality, because you're a christian"), but that would not be an example of ad hominen necessarily; that would indeed be a legitimate point to raise (however fallacious in form) that in turn would need to be debated and clarified before "moving on," as it were, because the salient issue is bias in regard to the topic at hand (i.e., objective moral guidelines).

Had I just said, "You can't offer anything at all regarding morality, because you're a christian," would, however, be ad hominen.

I think. It's been a while .

Rusting Car Bumper

You shoot yourself in the foot here.

In the case fo our current President your argument is both sound and valid.

DC

Jackalope

On the other hand, let me quote something from Freudian Fraud that makes the cocaine use germane to the subject of whether or not Freud actually discovered something about the mind, or whether he was just another quack.


At the time of the 1895 lectures Freud was engaged in active research on the relationship of sexual function to neurosis with his collaborator and close friend Wilheim Fleiss. Fleiss was a Berlin ear, nose, and throat specialist who believed that "the misuse of the sexual function" -- especially masturbation, coitus interruptus, and the use of condoms -- caused damage to the nervous system and also to tissue in the nose. Fleiss had localized specific "genital spots" in the nose and believed that neurosis caused by the misuse of the sexual organs could be treated by applying cocaine to those spots and by electrically cauterizing them. In an 1893 textbook Fleiss described 131 cases of neurosis, all of which were treated with cocaine and cauterization.

So far, we've found out that Freud's main collaborator was a quack who believed in using cocaine on "genital spots" in the nose would cure neurosis. But it gets better.


The recent publication of Freud's volumninous correspondence with Fleiss revealed how enthusiastically Freud supported Fleiss's theories. One week prior to his initial 1895 lecture, Freud had written Fleiss urging him to publish his pamphlet, "The Nose and Female Sexuality." Freud, like Fleiss, believed that many physical and mental symptoms were caused by a "nasal reflex" that originated in the genitalia, proceeded to the nose, and then was transmitted to other organs. For example, earlier in 1895, Freud had described a patient with a "one-sided facial spasm" in which Freud believed he had localized the "nasal reflex" to a specific spot on the nasal mucosa; he told Fleiss he might send the patient to him for definitive treatment. Similarly, Fleiss described to Freud cases of "neuralgic stomach pains" that could be treated by the application of cocaine and cauterization of a specific "stomach ache spot" on the nasal mucosa.

So now we know that Freud agreed with this bilge. Yes, that does shine a slightly different light on the idea that Freud discovered any real truths about the human psyche.

Another thing that shines a poor light on Freud's theories is the strong evidence that he was molested as a child. And even worse, the "Oedipus complex" theory seems to have appeared just about the same time he disovered his father was still molesting his younger siblings. Someone who was sexually abused as a child probably doesn't have the best perspective on what a normal child's mental and sexual development might be. Especially when the theory turns out to be one more variation on, "But he/she really wanted it."

These aren't irrelevant facts, and indeed would have a very strong bearing on how likely it was that Freud actually unearthed any lasting truths about the development of the human mind. If it can be shown that a) he was partial to quack therapies to start with and b) had personal issues that may have clouded his perspective on human development.

I'll leave out the fact that Freud's notions have by and large been discarded by psychiatry. When I took psych classes in the late 80s and early 90s, at least one lecture in each class was spent debunking Freud. There are plenty of good reasons to not believe any of his theories. The two I've given up there are actually not nearly the most damning ones. But they fit the idea that at least as far as scientific reasoning goes, it pays to look carefully at the person as well as the theory. Sometimes the personal history explains where the theory came from. However, those should only be supporting arguments, not the main ones.

Quotes from Freudian Fraud: The Malignant Effect of Freud's Theory on American Thought and Culture, by E. Fuller Torry, M.D.

--Lee