Caleb Harrelson
[Originally published as Bad reasoning hurts people]
Bad reasoning is keeping believers and our nation away from thoughtful engagement.
Below is an example of fallacious (erroneous) reasoning that I see a lot:
The Ad Hominem Fallacy:
In Latin, it literally means “towards the man.” This happens when someone attacks the person who holds a different view rather than making the argument instead of the argument itself.
- Person 1: I think this_______ behavior is wrong.
- Person 2: You only think that is wrong because you are a horrible person (e.g., hateful, racist, an oppressor, an idiot, etc.)
Can you see the logical fallacy in this example?
Person 2 is not responding to reasons why they think person 1’s moral position is wrong, he is merely attacking the character of person 1. Person 2’s response avoids the moral issue at hand by incerting emotionally charged moral rhetoric about the person making the contrary claim. He is now slandering and insulting person 1, thus shutting down the conversation by assuming the worse of person 1.
It is good and logical to engage with the ideas and underlying beliefs of someone we disagree with, but it is a copeout to avoid considering alternate positions by declaring the other person doesn’t even deserve a hearing because of their bad character (whether true or presumed).
The Genetic Fallacy
While related to the Ad Hominem fallacy in how it avoids the issue, this is distinct enough to consider on its own. The Fallacy Detective book states that a gentic fallacy occurs when a claim is based on “the genesis, or beginning, of something. The genetic fallacy is different from ad hominem because it does not attack the person making the argument. It attacks the place where the argument came from” (43-44).
- Person 1: I think abortion is wrong and we should not support it.
- Person 2: Why should I listen to you? You are a member of X group (a certain political party, Christian, a man, from a certain city, a certain skin color), thus I can’t trust anything you are saying.
Can you spot the logical fallacy?
This is another example of “avoiding the issue” because person 2 is not responding to the claims of person 1. She is merely dismissing a moral claim because of the origin or background of person 1. The origin or background of the person making an argument may help explain why they hold to that position, but it doesn’t mean that their position is therefore automatically wrong. Like the ad hominem, this is an error of thinking because it is not dealing with the issue at hand, but rather side-stepping it by discounting the point simply because of “where it began, how it began, or who began it” (The Fallacy Detectives, 49-40).
The proper response would have been for person 2 to say reasons why they think abortion is not wrong instead of dismissing it based on the origins of the person stating the claim.
Please don’t let bad reasoning keep you from having a thoughtful engagement with others. This matters to all who would like to move past the lazy rhetoric of our days and instead pursue the beauty, truth, and goodness in God’s world.
