7 argumentum ad hominem circumstantial this is the

Info icon This preview shows pages 3–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
 7. Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial) This is the other interpretation of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. This variety pertains to the  relationship between a person’s beliefs and his circumstances. When two persons are d isp uting, one may ignore the question of whether his own contention is true  or false and seek instead to prove that his opponent ought to accept it because of his opponent’s  special circumstances. For example, if one’s adversary is a clergyman, one may argue that a certain contention must be  accepted because its denial is incompatible with the scriptures and/or faith. This is not to prove it  true, but to urge its acceptance by that particular individual because of his special circumstances- in  this case his religious affiliation.
Image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Such arguments are not really to the point; they do not present good grounds for the truth of their  conclusions but are intended only to win assent to the conclusion from one’s opponent because of  his special circumstances.   The connection between the abusive and the circumstantial varieties of  argumentum ad hominem  is that; a)      The  circumstantial  variety may be regarded as a special case of abusive. It charges a person  who d isp utes your conclusion with inconsistency which may be regarded as a kind of reproach or  abuse. b)      The  hominine  charges the adversary with being so prejudiced that his alleged reasons are  mere rationalisations of conclusions dictated by self-interest. And that is certainly to abuse him  8.  Petitio Principii (begging the question) In attempting to establish the truth of a proposition, one often casts about for acceptable premises  from which the proposition in question can be deduced as conclusion. If you assume as a premise  for your argument the very conclusion you intend to prove, the fallacy committed is that of petitio  principii, or begging the question.   For example the argument that “I am because I am” is a classical example of  petitio principii  9. Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion)    This fallacy is committed when an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion is  directed to proving a different conclusion.   For example, when a particular proposal for housing legislation is under consideration, a legislator  may rise to speak in favour of the bill and argue that only decent housing for all the people is  desirable.
Image of page 4
Image of page 5
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern