THE PRINCIPLE ERROR

On a television news show, the issue was raised by a Republican pundit that President Obama was now saying he would do something that he said in the campaign he would absolutely never do. The liberal pundit on the show countered with, "I never heard Republicans complain when President George W. Bush did a similar thing so they have nothing to complain about now."

Ouch! That defense offered by the liberal pundit is a classic logical error. It is an "ad hominem" (Latin for "against the person") attack on the arguer rather than on the argument. An attack on the person on the other side of an argument does not negate the argument made by that person. An argument must stand or fall on its own merits. To counter an argument, it must be shown that the facts offered up by the arguer are mistaken or do not support the conclusion...in this case, that Obama is not going against what he said in the campaign, or if he is, it is not an impropriety. It matters not one whit whether the argument is being made by a child, a criminal, someone who is insane, or by a political party that has done something nefarious in the past. Whatever the shortcomings of the arguer, the argument must be countered on its own terms.

So why then do we so often hear ad hominem attacks during a discussion of some issue or other, like "What would you know about it?" or "That's really funny coming from you of all people" or, as in this case, "You guys can't complain, you've done the same thing"?

I think it is because we are not as principled a people as we once were. A principle is a general idea about life that serves as a guideline for living and for our views of what is right and wrong, such as "You should always be honest," or "If you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything." But if a principle is to be used as the basis for action, it ought be clear and well-defined... and it ought be something you can prove is right.

For example: Let's say one of your principles is "It is good to help the needy." That is a fairly commonly held principle. Perhaps your parents told you that when you were a child. Perhaps you heard it in a sermon. Perhaps you saw and enjoyed a movie about Robin Hood, who was portrayed as a hero for "robbing from the rich and giving it to the poor." So when the government today seeks to pass a federal program to give some benefits to some perceived needy group, you might jump on the bandwagon.

But to know whether your principle clearly applies in this case, you would first need to answer these questions:

Why is it good to help the needy? Who exactly are the needy? Does it matter what they are needy of? Does it matter why exactly they are not in a position to provide themselves with what they need? Should everyone help the needy or only those that can afford it? And how is that determined? Is it appropriate and constitututional for the government to implement a program that will force some to pay additional taxes for that program? Should your principle apply only to voluntary charitable giving to the needy? Etc. etc. etc.

It would take time to study and answer these questions, time many would prefer not to expend. Their principles remain unsubstantiated by reason and fact and logic and they base their positions on moral and political issues with personal, unreliable feelings...feelings that are always "right" simply because we feel them. Ever notice that political pundits never never ever change their minds or admit they were wrong.

So, rather than proving that President Obama's changing his mind t is not per se wrong and a violation of a proper principle, it is easier to blurt out some ad hominem complaint against the other side. After all, they would say, "It doesn't feel right for you to complain when you guys have done the same thing."

What about "two wrongs don't make a right"? Not feeling that one today.