Recap on Hume and ad hominem arguments

1. Hume

Proposed basing ethics on:

. . . universal sentiments

. . . . . . something nearly everyone agrees on

. . . example: benevolence is good

. . . other examples?

. . . In your case discussions:

. . . . . . One can ask,

. . . . . . . . . “Is there a
. . . . . . . . . universal sentiment
. . . . . . . . . that can help
. . . . . . . . . resolve this case?”

2. Ad hominem arguments

(ad hominem = “to the man”)

. . . They can be a

. . . . . . “sleazy rhetorical device”

. . . Example:

. . . . . . Disputing someone’s argument

. . . . . . by arguing about the person,

. . . . . . not about the argument,

. . . . . . in a way that is not

. . . . . . logically connected to the argument

. . . Example:

. . . . . . “Don’t abuse alcohol, it’s not good.” “But you do, so practice what you  preach, or don’t preach it!”

. . . They can be valid

. . . Example:

. . . . . . There *is* a logical connection between the person and the argument

. . . Example:

. . . . . . “He is hired to promote a viewpoint, so his argument might not be balanced”

3. Questions for your cases

– Do any universal sentiments apply to the case?

– Is one party resorting to sleazy ad hominem argument?

– Is one party using valid ad hominem argument?

Advertisements