Moral Deliberation and Ad Hominem Fallacies

Journal of Moral Philosophy 13 (5):507-529 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
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 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
Reprint years
2015, 2016
PhilPapers/Archive ID
LEIMDA-3
Revision history
First archival date: 2015-02-24
Latest version: 2 (2015-03-02)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Animal Liberation.Singer, Peter. (ed.)
Ad Hominem Arguments.Walton, Douglas

View all 24 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Introduction: Virtues and Arguments.Aberdein, Andrew & Cohen, Daniel H.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2015-02-24

Total views
491 ( #8,325 of 50,068 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
45 ( #13,605 of 50,068 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.