Jump to content

Reductio ad Hitlerum: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
Its name is a pun on [[reductio ad absurdum]], and was coined by an academic [[ethicist]], [[Leo Strauss]], in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as '''playing the Nazi card''',<ref name="FallacyFiles1">{{Cite web|url= http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html |title=Logical Fallacy: The Hitler Card|work=Fallacy Files|date=2004|last=Curtis|first=Gary N.|accessdate=2007-10-08}}</ref> by analogy to playing the [[race card]].
Its name is a pun on [[reductio ad absurdum]], and was coined by an academic [[ethicist]], [[Leo Strauss]], in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as '''playing the Nazi card''',<ref name="FallacyFiles1">{{Cite web|url= http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html |title=Logical Fallacy: The Hitler Card|work=Fallacy Files|date=2004|last=Curtis|first=Gary N.|accessdate=2007-10-08}}</ref> by analogy to playing the [[race card]].


The tactic is often used to [[Distraction|derail]] arguments, because such comparisons tend to distraction and anger.<ref name="FallacyFiles1"/>
The tactic is often used to [[Distraction|derail]] arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.<ref name="FallacyFiles1"/>


==Fallacious nature of the argument==
==Fallacious nature of the argument==

Revision as of 13:38, 15 April 2011

Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (Latin for "reduction to" and "argument to" and dog Latin for "Hitler" respectively) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument, and is an informal fallacy. It is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. The suggested logic is one of guilt by association, a classic confusion of correlation and causality, as if to say that anything that Adolf Hitler did, no one else should do, for it will obviously or eventually lead to genocide.

Its name is a pun on reductio ad absurdum, and was coined by an academic ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card,[1] by analogy to playing the race card.

The tactic is often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.[1]

Fallacious nature of the argument

Reductio ad Hitlerum is no more than guilt by association, a form of association fallacy.[1][2] The fallacy claims that a policy leads to—or is the same as—one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich, and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable. For example: "Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong [because the things Hitler did were wrong, or because it could lead to results ideologically or morally aligned with Hitler]." Instances of reductio ad Hitlerum are also likely to suffer from the fallacy of begging the question or take the form of slippery slope arguments, which are often false as well.[1] Used broadly enough, ad Hitlerum can encompass more than one questionable cause fallacy type, by both inverting cause and effect and by linking an alleged cause to wholly unrelated consequences. Hitler was fond of dogs and children, but to argue that affection for dogs and children is wrong on this basis is not logically sound.

Various criminals, controversial religious and political figures, regimes, and atrocities other than those caused by Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust can be used for the same purposes. For example, a reductio ad Stalinum could assert that atheism is a dangerous philosophy because Stalin was an atheist for most of his life.[3]

The fallacious nature of reductio ad Hitlerum is easily illustrated by identifying X as something that Adolf Hitler or his supporters did promote but which is not considered unethical, such as painting, enjoying classical music, owning dogs, anti-smoking campaigns or opposition to fox hunting.

History of the term

The phrase reductio ad Hitlerum is first known to have appeared in University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss's 1953[4] book, 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.

The phrase was derived from the better known logical argument called reductio ad absurdum. The argumentum variant takes its form from the names of many classic fallacies, such as argumentum ad hominem. The ad Nazium variant may be further derived, humorously, from argumentum ad nauseam.

In 2000 traditionalist Catholic Thomas Fleming described its use against traditional values:

Leo Strauss called it the reductio ad Hitlerum. If Hitler liked neoclassical art, that means that classicism in every form is Nazi; if Hitler wanted to strengthen the German family, that makes the traditional family (and its defenders) Nazi; if Hitler spoke of the "nation" or the "folk," then any invocation of nationality, ethnicity, or even folkishness is Nazi ...[5]

Real-world use

Professor Michael André Bernstein alleged Reductio ad Hitlerum in a full-page advertisement placed in The New York Times in 1991, by the Lubavitch community, following the Crown Heights Riot, under the heading "This Year Kristallnacht Took Place on August 19th Right Here in Crown Heights." Henry Schwarzschildr, who had witnessed Kristallnacht, wrote to the New York Times that "however ugly were the anti-Semitic slogans and the assaultive behavior of people in the streets [during the Crown Heights riots] . . . one thing that clearly did not take place was a Kristallnacht."[6]

In 2004 IPCC chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, was quoted in Jyllandposten saying of global warming-skeptic Bjørn Lomborg “What is the difference between Lomborg’s view of humanity and Hitler’s?”, and “If you were to accept Lomborg’s way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing.” Lomborg had followed the consensus practice of economists in applying a discount to present costs for future benefits, and comparing the range of out-comes with other world problems alongside climate change.[7]

In the 2008 documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein alleged that acceptance of evolution as a scientific theory leads to Nazism - a point illustrated by the juxtaposition of images of evolutionary biologists and Nazis.[8][9][10]

Use of Reductio ad Hitlerum has been alleged in criticisms of United States Presidents Ronald Reagan,[11] George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush,[12] and Barack Obama, and against 2008 Presidential candidate John McCain.[13][14][15][16] For example, a Penn State trustee compared Reagan's rhetoric when addressing a Young Americans for Freedom chapter to Adolf Hitler indoctrinating the Hitler Youth.[11] Moreover, American radio commentator Rush Limbaugh compared "the Democratic Party of today" and U.S. President Barack Obama to Nazis.[17]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d Curtis, Gary N. (2004). "Logical Fallacy: The Hitler Card". Fallacy Files. Retrieved 2007-10-08.
  2. ^ Curtis, Gary N. (2004). "Logical Fallacy: Guilt by Association". Fallacy Files. Retrieved 2007-10-08.
  3. ^ Tobin, Paul N. (2004). "Hitler, Stalin and Atheism". Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity. Archived from the original on 2007-10-14. Retrieved 2007-11-24.
  4. ^ "Natural Right and History". University of Oklahoma. 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-11.
  5. ^ Thomas Fleming, editor, Chronicles (Rockford, Illinois), May 2000, p. 11.
  6. ^ http://www.escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=ft3x0nb2ns
  7. ^ http://www.aei.org/docLib/200502151_epojanfebg.pdf
  8. ^ Rennie, John. "Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed." Scientific American. 9 April 2008. 19 May 2008.
  9. ^ "You Say You Want an Evolution." Newsweek. 14 April 2008: 17.
  10. ^ "Hitler and Eugenics." Expelled Exposed. 1 May 2008.
  11. ^ a b Shauna Moser (March 2, 2006). "Penn State Trustee Compares Reagan to Hitler".
  12. ^ Borger, Julian (13 August 2003). "Study of Bush's psyche touches a nerve | World news". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-07-19.
  13. ^ Madonna infuriates McCain with Hitler-Mugabe sequence at Cardiff concert, Times Online, August 25, 2008
  14. ^ Benjamin, Mark (2008-07-22). "National Review writer compares Obama to Hitler — War Room". Salon.com. Retrieved 2009-07-19.
  15. ^ 37 Diggs (2008-02-14). "FOX's Tom Sullivan compares Obama to Hitler". Crooks and Liars. Retrieved 2009-07-19.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  16. ^ Lowell Greenbaum (2009-06-09). "Cartoon an insult to president 060909 - The Augusta Chronicle". Chronicle.augusta.com. Retrieved 2009-07-19.
  17. ^ "Editorial: The US health care debate." Jerusalem Post. 18 August 2009. 19 August 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Reductio_ad_Hitlerum&oldid=424197788"