Jagmeet Singh, abortion, and illogic

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, People's Party of Canada Leader Maxime Bernier, Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh at federal leaders debate in Gatineau, Quebec (October 7, 2019). Photo credit: SEAN KILPATRICK/POOL/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES (via Montreal Gazette)

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

October 17, 2019

Jagmeet Singh, abortion, and illogic

The topic of abortion came up at the Canadian federal leaders’ debate (October 7, 2019), and logic took a beating.

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh stated the following: “A man has no place in a discussion around a woman’s right to choose. Let’s be very clear on that.”

Apparently, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and Green leader Elizabeth May agreed with Singh, whereas Conservative leader Andrew Scheer didn't. Because of the poor format of the debate—and poor moderation—I didn't get clear on what the other leaders thought.

So let’s (at least) be very clear on Mr. Singh's claim.

There are two logical problems—serious logical problems.

Problem 1

Mr. Singh commits the ad hominem fallacy, the mistake in reasoning which occurs when an arguer is attacked instead of his/her arguments.

Some instances of the ad hominem fallacy are easy to spot. Consider the following:

“Einstein is Jewish, therefore his theory of relativity should be rejected.”

“Your doctor is a woman, therefore don’t believe what she says about prostate cancer.”

Clearly, in the above arguments the premise (i.e., the bit before “therefore”) is not relevant to the conclusion (the bit after “therefore”).

But some instances of the ad hominem fallacy are not so easy to spot.

Consider (again) Mr. Singh's claim: “A man has no place in a discussion around a woman’s right to choose [abortion].”

Significantly, Singh is dismissing as illegitimate all arguments that men might present on the topic of abortion merely because the arguer is a man. That is, Singh is dismissing a view because of a characteristic of the arguer (i.e., his sex) rather than via a careful examination of the arguer’s argument (i.e., its merits or lack thereof).

But this is to attack the messenger instead of the message, which is a logical sin—the ad hominem fallacy.

Problem 2

Mr. Singh’s claim is also self-refuting.

A self-refuting claim includes itself in its field of reference but fails to satisfy its own criteria of truthfulness or rational acceptability.

Here is an example: “There are no truths.” Hmmm. If it's true, then it's not true. It self-refutes.

Another example (spoken by me): “I cannot speak a word of English.” Get the picture?

Back to our NDP leader. According to Mr. Singh, “A man has no place in a discussion around a woman’s right to choose [abortion].”

Let's think: a MAN is saying that a MAN’s voice doesn’t count on an issue, i.e., the issue HE is talking about. Well, if this is true, then Mr. Singh—a man—has no place in this discussion, and so his claim should be dismissed.

I like Mr. Singh and I intend no disrespect to him. Nevertheless, I think his claim is deeply problematic from the perspective of logic—and I hope that my pointing this out will help elevate the quality of reasoning in the public discussion about abortion.

I hope, too, that pro-life MPs will get elected.

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor (Providence University College) who lives in Steinbach, Manitoba.

For additional thought:

• Untangling popular “pro-choice” claims and arguments concerning abortion
• Aborting Trudeau's (other) abortion argument

Phobia-label fear

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, May 26, 2016

Phobia-label fear

When it comes to matters LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer/ questioning, etc.), I've noticed that critical discussion often is halted or doesn't even get started because of fear about being labeled homophobic, biphobic, transphobic, bigoted, or intolerant.

Today I will attempt to allay such fear by exposing the confusion lurking behind it and then setting out five clarifications.

Before I begin, however, let me emphasize this: All persons—whether they identify as LGBTQ+ or not—are made in God's image, are loved by God, plus deserve respect as well as protection from bullying and violence.

Here's the confusion: If a person offers criticisms of same-sex, etc. sexual relationships, then we can immediately judge that the person is homo/ bi/ transphobic, bigoted, or intolerant and, thus, that the criticisms should be ignored.

Clarification 1. A phobia is an irrational aversion or fear or hatred concerning X (see Mayo Clinic's online entry on phobia), whereas one is not necessarily phobic if one has reasonable evidence-based concerns about X. Being concerned about very large spiders near little children doesn't mean one is arachnophobic.

It turns out that many intelligent people have reasonable evidence-based concerns and questions about LGBTQ+. It would be intellectually dishonest to judge such persons as “phobic.”

Clarification 2. A bigot is someone who has a tendency to hold a view or opinion blindly and dogmatically, without giving careful consideration to contrary evidence. Significantly, however, an attempt to reason with care and to examine evidence, pro and con, need not be an instance of bigotry.

This means persons can be critical of LGBTQ+ matters and not be bigots.

Clarification 3. Calling a critic of LGBTQ+ names such as “homophobe” or “biphobe” or “transphobe” or “bigot” and then dismissing the critic’s arguments on the basis of his/ her alleged personality disorder (whether it’s a phobia or whatever) is to commit the ad hominem fallacy.

The ad hominem fallacy is the mistake in reasoning wherein the arguer is attacked instead of his/her argument, when doing so is not relevant. The critic’s argument should be assessed on the basis of its merits.

(Note: If the arguer is in fact homophobic or transphobic, etc., this may give us grounds to suspect that his/ her arguments are not strong; nevertheless, whether the arguments are in fact strong or not depends on the arguments themselves.)

Clarification 4. Not all tolerance is good, and not all intolerance is bad.

Police are rightly intolerant of drunk driving as well as texting and driving. Teachers are rightly intolerant of cheating on exams and bullying. Parents are rightly intolerant of children playing with matches.

If it is reasonable to think that a behaviour can seriously harm a person, then it is good to be intolerant of such behaviour. Tolerance of such behaviour would be not good.

Clarification 5. In the case of same-sex, etc. sexual relations, the public issues have to do (minimally) with balancing possible harm and freedom of expression.

So the following questions should be raised: Is there evidence for thinking that the relations in question have harmful consequences to self or others? Or not?

If there are such harmful consequences, are they sufficiently harmful to self or others so that we should question the wisdom of engaging in or promoting such sexual behaviour? Or not?

For the sake of truth, and for the sake of avoiding possible harm to innocents, these are questions responsible adults should not be afraid to ask (e.g., see my column Is promoting same-sex sex wise?). Questioning is not phobic. Nor is it bigoted or intolerant.

I conclude with this comment from Robert P. George, professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University: “Cowardice is a greater danger to our civilization than error. When people cannot muster the courage to speak the truth, error will triumph.”

Have courage, then. Boldly seek truth and speak truth. And do so lovingly, with gentleness and respect toward those who disagree.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views expressed in this column do not always represent the views of Providence.)

Homophobia, bigotry, intolerance? (Homosexuality: Part 1 of 3)

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen

(The Carillon, May 20, 2010)

Homophobia, bigotry, intolerance?
(Homosexuality: Part 1 of 3)

There are a number of popular confusions surrounding the issues of homosexual sex and same-sex marriage. Today I will set out one of these confusions plus offer seven clarifications. (Please note: I will do my best to be respectful to all persons, whether those persons approve of same-sex sexual relations or not.)

Popular Confusion: If you criticize same-sex sexual relationships, then ipso facto (by that very fact) we can judge that you are homophobic, a bigot, and/or intolerant, and so your criticisms should be ignored.

Clarification 1. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. For example, arachnophobia is an irrational fear of arachnids—i.e., spiders. However, it is possible to have a rational fear of or concern about spiders, especially if there is evidence that the spiders in question are dangerous to your health (or dangerous to your children’s health, or dangerous to your friends’ health). Similarly, it is possible to have a rational concern about homosexual sex if there is evidence that such sexual behaviour is unhealthy or dangerous for the parties involved. Not all fears or concerns, then, are phobias. In fact, some fears or concerns can be reasonable, if there are good grounds for those fears or concerns.

Clarification 2. The term bigot describes someone who has a tendency to hold a view or opinion blindly, without giving careful consideration to contrary evidence. Significantly, an attempt to reason with care and to examine evidence when one has a reasonable concern about a topic need not be an instance of bigotry.

Clarification 3. Calling a critic of same-sex relations names such as "homophobe" and "bigot" and then dismissing the critic’s arguments on the basis of his/her alleged personality disorder (whether it’s homophobia or bigotry or both) is to commit the ad hominem fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy is the mistake in reasoning wherein the arguer is attacked instead of his/her argument, when doing so is not relevant. Surely, the critic’s argument should be assessed on the basis of its merits. (Note: If the arguer is in fact a homophobe or bigot, this may give us grounds to suspect that his/her arguments are not strong; nevertheless, whether the arguments are in fact strong or not depends on the arguments themselves.)

Clarification 4. Not all tolerance is good, and not all intolerance is bad. Police are rightly intolerant of drunk driving, spousal abuse, and murder. Teachers are rightly intolerant of cheating and bullying. Parents are rightly intolerant of children playing with matches. If it is reasonable to think that an act can seriously harm another person, then it is good to be intolerant of such acts. Tolerance of such acts would be not good.

Clarification 5. In the case of same-sex sexual relations, the (secular, public) issue has to do (minimally) with balancing possible harm and freedom. So the following questions should be addressed: Are there good reasons for thinking that homosexual sex has harmful consequences to self or others? Or not? If there are such harmful consequences, are they sufficiently harmful to self or others that we should question the wisdom of engaging in or promoting such sexual behaviour? Or not? For the sake of truth, and for the sake of avoiding possible harm to innocents, these are questions we should dare to ask.

Clarification 6. Considerable evidence strongly suggests that serious health-related problems are associated with homosexual sex, more so than with heterosexual sex. (For verification, check, for starters, the medical issues webpage from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality [see especially part III of NARTH's What Research Shows]; plus check the position statement webpage from the Christian Medical and Dental Associations [see especially the list of references under “Physical Health” in CMDA’s Annotated References].) If such problems are in fact serious—as they very much seem to be—then responsible and caring people should want to know about them.

Clarification 7. Responsible and caring people, whether homosexual or not, should be free to talk about the above problems with neither fear of homophobia, bigotry, and intolerance, nor fear of false accusations thereof. Open discussion and truth-seeking are important—and so is showing respect to those with whom one disagrees.

P.S. Here is an important letter that the American College of Pediatricians sent in March 2010 to U.S. high schools, a letter in which the ACP cautions teachers about affirming students’ same-sex attraction: ACP letter.

P.P.S. Is being gay like race?

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

The Ad Hominem Fallacy

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen

(The Carillon, July 2, 2009)

The Ad Hominem Fallacy

A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning or argument. Some fallacies are so common that they have been given their own names. The ad hominem fallacy is the mistake of criticizing an arguer instead of his/her argument, when doing so is not relevant. (Argumentum ad hominem is Latin for “argument to/against the man.”)

The ad hominem fallacy occurs when something about the arguer’s person—his/her character, attitude, ethnicity, race, religion, sex, circumstance, or even behaviour—is attacked instead of the truth claims or logical structure of the argument presented, when this something about the arguer’s person has no bearing on the truth or logic of the argument presented.

Some instances of the ad hominem fallacy are easy to spot. Consider the following arguments:

“Einstein is Jewish, therefore his theory of relativity should be rejected.”

“Your doctor is a woman, therefore don’t believe what she says about prostate cancer.”

Clearly, in the above arguments the premise (i.e., the bit before “therefore”) is not relevant to the conclusion (the bit after “therefore”).

But some instances of the ad hominem fallacy are not so easy to spot.

Consider an example from the abortion debate. A pro-life spokesperson—a man—has just set out several detailed arguments for thinking that what is aborted is in fact a human being with the right to life. After his presentation, someone from the audience says the following (loudly and angrily): “You are a man, therefore your arguments against abortion don’t count!”

The above “critique” commits the ad hominem fallacy.

The arguer (the pro-life spokesperson) is being criticized (for being male) resulting in the dismissal of the arguer’s argument (his case concerning the fetus’s status as a human being having rights). Neglected by the critic, however, is the fact that an argument should be assessed on the basis of its merits (or lack thereof), not on the basis of whether the argument has been set out by a male or a female.

The crucial but missed issue is whether the argument is logically cogent; the sex/gender of the arguer is wholly beside the point.

Now consider an example from the homosexuality debate. A gentleman respectfully sets out an argument for questioning the wisdom of celebrating Gay Pride parades, which promote homosexual sex. His argument appeals (1) to a couple of serious medical problems associated with some homosexual sexual practices, especially for males, and (2) to the apparent general difficulty of homosexual couples maintaining long-term monogamous relationships. The response from several critics (stated loudly and angrily): the man is a “homophobe,” therefore we should ignore him.

The above “critique” also commits the ad hominem fallacy.

First, it is important to note that a person can have legitimate, reasonable concerns about a behaviour if there are in fact some serious medical and/or social health issues associated with the behaviour. In other words, not all such concerns are irrational fears or phobias. (As politically incorrect as this may sound, the public does have a legitimate interest in behaviour that may harm people, cost public health dollars, and/or promote domestic arrangements which aren’t in the best interests of children.)

Second, neglected by the critics is the fact (again) that an argument should be assessed on the basis of its merits (or lack thereof), not on the basis of whether the argument has been set out by a homophobe or a non-homophobe.

The crucial but missed issue is whether the argument is logically cogent; the homophobic/non-homophobic attitude of the arguer is wholly beside the point.

A homophobic attitude of the arguer might provide grounds to suspect that the arguer’s argument is poorly constructed; nevertheless, the argument itself should be assessed to determine whether it is in fact poorly constructed.

Of course, sometimes ad hominem arguments are not fallacious, as, say, when a smart lawyer presents good evidence for thinking that a witness is not trustworthy and so the witness’s testimony should not be accepted.

How, then, can we tell the difference between acceptable and non-acceptable ad hominem arguments? Answer: Via the art of critical thinking—coupled with the courage not to be intimidated by irrelevant personal attacks.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)