An Interesting New Facet To Debate

[toledo_jesus]

[quote]Reductio ad Hitlerum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The term reductio ad Hitlerum (sometimes rendered reductio ad Hitlerem; whimsical Latin for "reduction to Hitler") was originally coined by University of Chicago professor and ethicist Leo Strauss. The phrase comes from the more well-known logical argument reductio ad absurdum. It is a variety of association fallacy and may also be described as argumentum ad nazium. The relatively frequent occurrence of such absurd lines of reasoning in Usenet discussions led to the formulation of Godwin's Law in 1990.

The reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy is of the form "Adolf Hitler or the Nazi party supported X; therefore X must be evil". This fallacy is often effective due to the near-instant condemnation of anything to do with Hitler or the Nazis.

The fallacious nature of this argument is best illustrated by identifying X as something that Adolf Hitler or his supporters did promote but which is not considered evil — for example, X = "promoting expressways", X = "wearing khakis", X = "painting watercolors", or X = "vegetarianism". It is important to understand that those policies advocated by Hitler and his party that are generally considered evil, are all condemned by themselves, not because Hitler supported them. In other words: they are not evil because Hitler advocated them, but rather Hitler was evil because he advocated them. It may also be refuted through counterexamples:

* Dwight Eisenhower, who despised Hitler's criminality, admired his Autobahnen and promoted the Interstate Highway System in the United States.
* Hitler's arch-enemy Sir Winston Churchill also painted.
* U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who asked Congress for a Declaration of War, and his successor Harry Truman, who continued to prosecute the war against Germany, also owned dogs.
* German-American scientist Albert Einstein was also a vegetarian.

The phrase appears in Strauss's writings in the 1950 Natural Right and History, Chapter II:

In following this movement towards its end we shall inevitably reach a point beyond which the scene is darkened by the shadow of Hitler. Unfortunately, it does not go without saying that in our examination we must avoid the fallacy that in the last decades has frequently been used as a substitute for the reductio ad absurdum: the reductio ad Hitlerum. A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Hitler.

Sundry criminals, religious and political cranks, and tyrants other than Hitler could be used for the same purposes. For example, a reductio ad Stalinum could assert that corporal punishment of wayward children is necessary because Josef Stalin enacted its abolition, or that atheism is a dangerous philosophy because Stalin was an atheist. Similarly, a reductio ad Cromwellium would equate enjoying chamber music with hating the Irish. Yet, it would make as much sense as saying that men with moustaches are evil because Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein all had moustaches.
[edit]

See also

* Ad hominem
* Godwin's Law
* Reductio ad absurdum[/quote]

I think Godwin's Law should apply here as well!

[Aloysius]

but... Hitler was anti-smoking and therefore all anti-smoking people are nazis!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

What's the debate? Of course it's a fallacy. I think it's funny that they came up with their own name for it, but whatever.

[toledo_jesus]

no debate, I think that this principle as well as Godwin's Law and its corollaries should be recognized and applied on the debate table.

[quote]Corollaries and usage

There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. Thus Godwin's Law serves also to impose an upper bound on thread length in general.

It is considered poor form to arbitrarily raise such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's Law (in the above sense) will be unsuccessful. This is sometimes referred to as "Quirks's Exception". It should be noted however, that continued expansion of the Internet has recently given rise to "RGB's Restriction of Quirk's Exception", to wit, "In cases where the subject of the comparison to Hitler fails to recognize the applicability of Quirk's Exception, Quirk's Exception shall not apply and Godwin's Law shall take effect in its normal manner."

P=(k^(1/n)) k<1 where P = the probablity of a reference to Hitler/Nazis, n = the number of posts, and k = a constant less than one depending on the subject of the post (k values for posts such as "Discuss WWII" will be much closer to 1 than the k value for a post labeled "Look at the cute doggies").[/quote]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1071262' date='Sep 22 2006, 12:01 PM']
but... Hitler was anti-smoking and therefore all anti-smoking people are nazis!
[/quote]
agreed.

[Budge]

So when speaking of totalitarian despots who are you ALLOWED to compare them with.

Do they have a rule for Stalin?

[Groo the Wanderer]

I like twinkies....





sorry - low on caffeine....my doc is a nazi cause he wants me to get off the stuff..

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1071375' date='Sep 22 2006, 01:50 PM']
I like twinkies....


sorry - low on caffeine....my doc is a nazi cause he wants me to get off the stuff..
[/quote]
see, according to the corollary of Godwin's law you would have lost the debate right there. I think it would encourage people to be more creative and think a little harder if they are declared the loser for bringing up Hitler.

[KnightofChrist]

Would comparing the Abortion Holocaust, to the Nazi Holocaust, not be allowed under Godwin's "Law", or would it be allowed?

I would think it can be applied...

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1072105' date='Sep 22 2006, 09:58 PM']
Would comparing the Abortion Holocaust, to the Nazi Holocaust, not be allowed under Godwin's "Law", or would it be allowed?

I would think it can be applied...
[/quote]
well of course that would be a reasonable comparison.

What Godwin's law says is that if we are, say, debating the merits of Swiss and Cheddar coagulated milk, and someone states as part of their argument "Well, Hermann Goering was a big fan of Swiss" then that person automatically loses the debate.

[KnightofChrist]

Oh understandalbe but would the interpretion of this "law" depend on the interpreter, like what if you have a liberal professor for your debate class?

I would also think Hilter's gun laws, would apply to the gun debate, but woud a liberal professor?

Hilter took guns away from the citizens, saying it would lower gun crime and basicly the same reasons liberals give to make guns illegal.

And because guns under Hilter were made illegal and taken away from the citizens it made the people defenseless.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1072686' date='Sep 23 2006, 01:24 PM']
Oh understandalbe but would the interpretion of this "law" depend on the interpreter, like what if you have a liberal professor for your debate class?

I would also think Hilter's gun laws, would apply to the gun debate, but woud a liberal professor?

Hilter took guns away from the citizens, saying it would lower gun crime and basicly the same reasons liberals give to make guns illegal.

And because guns under Hilter were made illegal and taken away from the citizens it made the people defenseless.
[/quote]
the point is that people always use Nazis and Hitler to make the point that something is evil. They use flawed logic to try to demonstrate a relationship between their opponent's position and Nazi ideology, rendering the opponent's position morally untenable.

For purposes of debate, I thought it was an interesting rule to encourage more thoughtfulness.