When is Someone Sufficiently Evil?

There are several tactics for prevailing in a debate. Among these are: disproving the argument of your opponent and proving your own argument. Unfortunately, another tactic is to attack the credibility of your opponent. While the credibility of an individual does not alter the truth of what he or she speaks, this tactic works quite well in the arena of public discourse. Many Americans often fall prey to the notion that the logical fallacy of ad hominem argument is actually a legitimate argument. Of course, there are other logical fallacies that most Americans buy into: strawman argument; appeal to motives, in place of support; inductive fallacies; missing the point; et cetera (a good reference is found at: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm ).

I believe that logical fallacies should not be resorted to, largely because they are intellectually dishonest, because they involve reaching faulty conclusions, from facts. However, I see ad hominem attack as an exception to this. Ad hominim falls into the catagory of logical fallacies deemed "changing the subject". In this case you do not draw dishonest conclusions from facts. You simply change the subject, in hopes of discrediting the individual in the eyes of the audience. As noted earlier, this tactic is effective. While the other logical fallacies can also be effective, this one is not so intellectualy dishonest, because it does not seek to draw faulty conclusions, such as: if A then B; B therefore A. Rather ad hominem is an alternative to logical debate. When an individual, such as the average American, is incapable of listening to and comprehending an argument, ad hominem attack upon the opponent can be used to shut off the audience to the opponent. Since you cannot reason with the audience, you turn them off from your opponent.

This is not to say that ad hominem is an acceptable mode of debate. Rather I see it as a last ditch effort to fend off those who are sufficiently evil. Among those who I would say are candidates for being sufficiently evil are the following Communists: Ted Kennedy, Algore, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, and the Bill & Hillary Clinton.

I do not believe that ad hominem attacks should be used as a primary means for debate. There are even occasions when it should be avoided at all costs. Here, for instance, ad hominem attack against an individual with whom you are debating an issue is counterproductive. This forum is not a public arena, in which we change public opinion. This forum serves for us to discuss issues so as to modify and strengthen our arguments - or discard them, when we find them to be incorrect. The only way to win a debate in this forum is to come nearer to the truth - winning is not defined by who convinces who, rather it is defined by whether or not the individuals find the truth or arrive closer to it than where they started.

Here is my question:
What criteria would be appropriate for deeming someone sufficiently evil as to resort to ad hominem attacks against them?

Some criteria that I would propose are:

1) The individual advocates violation of the rights of Americans, beyond the scope of the governmental powers outlined in the constitution.

2) The individual is of such prominence that he or she has a voice of influence over the entire region or population affected by the issues in question (ex. a governor in an issue regarding the affairs of a state; a senator in an issue regarding the affairs of the entire nation).

3) The individual espouses view(s) which are blatantly illogical or inherently false, but a large percentage of the population agrees with the view(s).

Any thoughts on this?

That is a good point that you raise: "...even when he happens to be telling the truth..."

This should be another criterion added to the list.

4) Ad hominem should only be volleyed against someone who is sufficiently evil, in order to discredit his or her opinion, when that opinion advocates violating the rights of others or is a blatant lie.

Also, I would add, for emphasis:

5)An ad hominem should only consist of facts, not made up charges. This maintains some standards for honesty, and does not make one a legitimate target for ad homimen, by the criteria listed.

Example:

Bill Clinton wanted to socialize our medical system. In other words, he wanted me to pay for the health care of others, against my will. Moreoever, he wanted me to pay for a less efficient health care system which would provide inferior care to less people, at greater expense, against my will. I call that immoral, tyrannical, and thus, evil. Because many Americans could not see past his promises of free health care, the following attack would have been appropriate, in my opinion:

Bill Clinton utilized government property, property that my taxes pay to maintain, in order to have an affair with an intern nearly half his age and nearly twice his weight. You would trust such a man to tell you that he can socialize our medical system and ensure that you get adequate health care?

To ward off evil, we must sometimes fight fire with fire - in this case, fight foolishness with foolishness.

I am skeptical of deeming "...someone sufficiently evil as to resort to ad hominem attacks against them" just because "The individual is of such prominence that he or she has a voice of influence over the entire region or population affected by the issues in question."

You're talking about the Pope, Billy Graham (Sp?), Ghandi, any president of the US, any State governor, and any leader of a political party whether Republican, Democrat, or Libitarian. Your talking about Jesus.

And the same question goes for when "The individual espouses view(s) which are blatantly illogical..." but "...a large percentage of the population agrees with the view(s)." Do you understand the concept of faith as in faith based religiton? How about love?

As to inherently false, the views you are expressing here are inherently false. If a large percentage of the population agreed with you, should I call you evil just because you are wrong and a lot of people agree with you?

What definition of evil are you using? It's not any one I am aware of.

I think his work needs improvement and the inherent logic if any, is not obvious.

"The criteria that I suggested would all need to be met,..."

Noted.

"I call that immoral, tyrannical, and thus, evil."

Is that your definition of evil? Something that is immoral and tyrannical?

"...or is a blatant lie."

I recommend caution about that part. A lie is the telling of a falsehood with the intent to deceive. If one tells a falsehood but believes it to be the truth, one is not lieing. Calling someone a liar when they believe they are telling the truth can raise "the sleeping giant" within them.

"...when that opinion advocates violating the rights of others ..."

You're not leaving any room for honest, even though misguided, disagreement.

"This maintains some standards for honesty, and does not make one a legitimate target for ad homimen, by the criteria listed."

In order for a made up charge to make make one a legitiamte target for ad homimen by the criteria listed, making the charge would have to meet those criteria. Can you give an example of a made up charge that would do that?

"Is that your definition of evil? Something that is immoral and tyrannical?"

I regard what is immoral and tyrannical to be evil, though evil does not necessarily mean immoral and tyrannical.

"I recommend caution about that part. A lie is the telling of a falsehood with the intent to deceive. If one tells a falsehood but believes it to be the truth, one is not lieing. Calling someone a liar when they believe they are telling the truth can raise "the sleeping giant" within them."

This is definitely one of the aspects of the criteria that must be further refined, if possible.

"...when that opinion advocates violating the rights of others ..."

You're not leaving any room for honest, even though misguided, disagreement.

Isn't this a straightforward, black and white issue?

"In order for a made up charge to make make one a legitiamte target for ad homimen by the criteria listed, making the charge would have to meet those criteria. Can you give an example of a made up charge that would do that?"

Let's look at the criteria that have been listed:

1) The individual advocates violation of the rights of Americans, beyond the scope of the governmental powers outlined in the constitution.

2) The individual is of such prominence that he or she has a voice of influence over the entire region or population affected by the issues in question (ex. a governor in an issue regarding the affairs of a state; a senator in an issue regarding the affairs of the entire nation).

3) The individual espouses view(s) which are blatantly illogical or inherently false, but a large percentage of the population agrees with the view(s).

4) Ad hominem should only be volleyed against someone who is sufficiently evil, in order to discredit his or her opinion, when that opinion advocates violating the rights of others or is a blatant lie.

5)An ad hominem should only consist of facts, not made up charges. This maintains some standards for honesty, and does not make one a legitimate target for ad homimen, by the criteria listed.

The first three criteria define who is "sufficiently evil" for actions to be taken against, according to criteria 4 and 5.

Now, to answer your question, an example of a charge made up, that would warrant an ad hominem attack against the person levying it, could be the following:

Imagine a U.S. Senator Cora Upt. Senator Upt illegally viewed FBI files of her political opponents, had affairs with her junior interns, and got a 10000% return on a suspicious $1,000 investment in the futures market.

Suppose U.S. Senator Cora Upt advocates the federal government assuming control of the country's health care industry, socializing all aspects of it. Among the specific policies of her plan, she advocates involuntary participation in the socialized health care program - forcing people to pay into it, like with social security.
She defends this position by claiming that a socialized system will be superior, because the current free market system relies too much upon corrupt HMOs and greedy pharmaceutical companies, and thus favors profit over people. The American people buy into this fallacious argument and embrace it.
When senators with opposing views point out that the argument does not support the conclusion, nor will the socialized system result in any improvements, the public continues to be swayed by the illogical argument put forth by Senator Upt.
Senator Upt has met the first 3 criteria, making her "sufficiently evil" for ad hominem attacks to be levied against her, as a last ditch effort to weaken her cause. An acceptable ad hominem argument would be:

Senator Upt illegally viewed FBI files of her political opponents, had affairs with her junior interns, and got a 10000% return on a suspicious $1,000 investment in the futures market. Is this the person that you want deciding what is adequate or inadequate health care for your children?

This used only facts to attack and raise doubts about her character. An unacceptable ad hominem argument that would open up the person levying it to ad hominem arguments against him would be one such as the following:

My name is Senator Mick Carthy. I believe that Senator Cora Upt should be imprisoned for her dangerous views regarding the institution of communism. Communism was once outlawed in this country and still is in some states. I think that there was a good reason for this - because people like Senator Upt exist. She would have been thrown in jail 50 years ago and she should be in jail now.

This argument also satisfies the criteria that would deem Senator Carthy "sufficiently evil". He has met criteria 1-5. Therefore he is now eligible for ad hominem attacks against his dispicable character, as well.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.