Many of us read Peter Singer’s work on our obligations to those in desperate need with our students. Famously, Singer argues that we have a moral obligation to give a significant portion of our assets to famine relief. If my own experience is not atypical, it is quite common for students, upon grasping the implications of Singer’s argument, to ask whether Singer gives to famine relief. In response it might be tempting to remind students of the (so-called) ad hominem fallacy of attacking the person advancing an argument rather than the argument itself. In this paper I argue that the “ad hominem reply” to students’ request for information about Singer is misguided. First I show that biographical facts about the person advancing an argument can constitute indirect evidence for the soundness/unsoundness of the argument. Second, I argue that such facts are relevant because they may reveal that one can discard the argument without thereby incurring moral responsibility for failing to act on its conclusion even if the argument is sound.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Carbonell V., (2012). “ The Ratcheting-Up Effect,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 93(2):228–254.
Cholbi M., (2009) “ Moore’s Paradox and Moral Motivation,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (5):495–510.
Cohen G. A., (2006) “ Casting the First Stone: Who Can, and Who Can’t, Condemn the Terrorists?” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 81 (58):113–136.
Cohen G. A., (1992) “ Incentives, Inequality and Community,” The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 261–329.
Daniels N., (2011) “ Reflective Equilibrium,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), url = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/reflective-equilibrium/>.
Dworkin G., (2000) “ Morally Speaking” in Ullmann-Margalit (ed.) (2000) Reasoning Practically , oup.
FitzPatrick W. (2008) “ Moral Responsibility and Normative Ignorance: Answering a New Skeptical Challenge,” Ethics 118(4):589–613.
Guerrero A. (2007) “ Don’t Know, Don’t Kill: Moral Ignorance, Culpability, and Caution,” Philosophical Studies 136:59–97.
Hills A., (2010) “ Utilitarianism, Contractualism and Demandingness,’ Philosophical Quarterly 60 (239):225–242.
Hitchcock D., , (2007) “ Why there is no argumentum ad hominem fallacy,” in Frans H. van Eemeren, J. Blair Anthony, , Willard Charles A., and Garssen Bart (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation Amsterdam: Sic Sat, 615–620.
Hooker B., , (2009) “ The Demandingness Objection” in Chappell T., (ed.) (2009) The Problem of Moral Demandingness: New Philosophical Essays, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 148–162.
Hooker B., (1990) “ Rule-Consequentialism,” Mind 99(393):67–77.
Kagan S., (2001) “ Thinking about Cases,” Social Philosophy and Policy 18:44–63.
Moody-Adams M. (1994) “ Culture, Responsibility, and Affected Ignorance,” Ethics 104(2):291–309.
Pagin P., “ Belief and Assertion,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), url = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/assertion/beliefknowledge/>.
Regan T., and Singer P. (eds.), (1989) Animal Rights and Human Obligations , 2/e (Prentice Hall).
Rosen G., (2003), “ Culpability and Ignorance,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 103:61–84.
Singer P., (1972) “ Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1(3):229–243.
Singer P., (1975) Animal Liberation, Avon Books
Smith H., (1983) “ Culpable Ignorance,” The Philosophical Review, 92(4):543–571.
Walton D. N. (1987) “ The Ad Hominem Argument as an Informal Fallacy,” Argumentation 1(3):317–331.
Walton D. N. (1998) Ad hominem Arguments, University of Alabama Press.
Williams B., (2005/1978) Descartes: The Project of Pure Enquiry , Routledge (1978 edition Penguin)
Woods J., (2007) “ Lightening up on the ad hominem,” Informal Logic 27:109–134.
Zimmerman M., (1997), “ Moral Responsibility and Ignorance,” Ethics 107(3):410–426.
E.g., Singer (1972), (1975), and Regan & Singer (1989).
Carbonell (2012) argues that practices of moral saints provide evidence that sacrifices that seem too demanding are not as demanding as they may appear. This seems right to me. However, on her view our moral obligations depend on what it would be reasonable for us to believe we are obligated to do. And consequently, the behavior of moral saints may actually change our moral obligations. The view that our moral obligations depend on what would be reasonable for us to believe is highly contentious (as Carbonell admits) and my arguments here do not rely on this controversial principle.
Walton (1987) describes tu quoque arguments as one kind of circumstantial ad hominem arguments. He writes: “In the tu quoque form of the argument, the criticism is made: ‘You criticize me [or someone else] for doing [action] X, but then you yourself do X.’” (317)
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 886 | 105 | 21 |
Full Text Views | 272 | 8 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 133 | 15 | 0 |
Many of us read Peter Singer’s work on our obligations to those in desperate need with our students. Famously, Singer argues that we have a moral obligation to give a significant portion of our assets to famine relief. If my own experience is not atypical, it is quite common for students, upon grasping the implications of Singer’s argument, to ask whether Singer gives to famine relief. In response it might be tempting to remind students of the (so-called) ad hominem fallacy of attacking the person advancing an argument rather than the argument itself. In this paper I argue that the “ad hominem reply” to students’ request for information about Singer is misguided. First I show that biographical facts about the person advancing an argument can constitute indirect evidence for the soundness/unsoundness of the argument. Second, I argue that such facts are relevant because they may reveal that one can discard the argument without thereby incurring moral responsibility for failing to act on its conclusion even if the argument is sound.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 886 | 105 | 21 |
Full Text Views | 272 | 8 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 133 | 15 | 0 |