Fallacies.docx

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW 8 Don Manolo Ave., Alabang Hills, Muntinlupa City

AD HOMINEM and APPEAL TO AUTHORITY FALLACIES Legal Technique & Logic

Submitted by: CAUBANG, Grace (Section 3D) DE LEON, Richard Martin A. (Section 3D) MONTESA, Alvin Bae (Section 3C) LOPEZ, Migs (Section 3C) VILLARAZA, Ma. Lizette-Anne C. (Section 3C) 1st Semester A.Y. 2018-2019

Submitted to: Judge Alaras Professor of Law

Legal Technique | Judge Alaras | Pg. 1

AD HOMINEM As a fallacious argument, ad hominem attacks the opponent’s character, motive, or other personal attributes, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself in an attempt to undermine or discredit their argument. In other words, in an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of partaking in a genuine discussion of the topic at hand. The use of an ad hominem is a fallacy in argumentation because the characteristic or personal attribute of the opponent, that is being attacked by the arguer, is completely irrelevant to the matter being discussed. Such an attack, in no way shape or form, substantiates the arguer’s claim or defeats the claim of the opponent; provided, however, that the argument being asserted or the topic being addressed does not involve the character, motive, or other personal attributes of the opponent.

Example: Ms. X is quite an advocate for abortion and other contraceptive devices. But Ms. X is just ugly and bitter, so why should we listen to her?

In this example, Ms. X’s appearance and character, which the arguer has characterized so ungenerously, have nothing to do with the strength of her argument, so using them as evidence is fallacious. To avoid an ad hominem fallacy, one must stay focused on the opponent’s reasoning, rather than on their personal attributes or characteristics. However, the exception to this is if one is making an argument about the opponent’s character at the very onset, then the arguer must present premises to support the argumentative point with such evidence as are relevant, and not fallacious.

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY It is not unusual that disputants tend to add strength to their contentions by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues they are discussing. If, however, they try to substantiate their claims by simply citing a famous person or by appealing to a supposed authority who really is not much of an expert, they commit the fallacy of appeal to authority. In other words, appeal to authority is insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. The use of appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation because there is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that is why the critical thinker should always accept facts

Legal Technique | Judge Alaras | Pg. 2

provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable to accept a particular point as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, such reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made, such as the significance of such claim, as well as the authority, such as the credibility of such authority.

Example: We should not allow the use of abortion and other contraceptive devices. Many respected people, such as Ms. X, have publicly stated their opposition to such uses.

In this example, while Ms. X may be an authority on matters having to do with abortion and use of other contraceptive devices, there is no particular reason why anyone should be moved by her assertions, as she is probably no more an authority on the matter than any of the five persons writing this paper. To avoid an appeal to authority fallacy, one must ensure that the authorities cited are experts on the subject being discussed, and also, rather than merely stating “Ms. X is against abortion and use of other contraceptive devices, so we should be against it too,” the arguer should instead try to explain the reasoning or the evidence that the authority used to arrive at his or her stance. It will also help the arguer if he or she would choose authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral or reasonable, rather than persons who are perceived as bias.

Legal Technique | Judge Alaras | Pg. 3