Ad hominem, ad nauseam

One reader responding to my recent blogs on Ayn Rand said I'd committed the fallacy of ad hominem by attacking her personally. I don't think this is true. Let me explain why.

The term "ad hominem" is often misunderstood to mean any sort of personal insult. In fact, it is a personal insult used in a particular context. What makes a mere insult into a logical fallacy is the attempt to use the insult to support a conclusion that doesn't logically follow from it.

Consider these three statements:

1. Smith's ideas are wrong because Smith is ugly.

2. Smith is unable to get a date because Smith is ugly.

3. Smith is ugly.

Of these three, only the first is an ad hominem argument. The conclusion, "Smith's ideas are wrong," does not logically follow from the premise, "Smith is ugly." There is no plausible connection between Smith's alleged ugliness and the rightness or wrongness of his ideas.

The second statement is a different matter. Here, we might plausibly see a connection between premise and conclusion. If Smith looks like the Elephant Man, then he is unlikely to be successful in the dating scene. Note that even though the argument is valid, it may be false. Smith may not actually be ugly. Logic alone cannot decide that question. In any event, this statement is not an ad hominem argument.

The third statement isn't an argument at all. It is just an observation or opinion. There is no chain of reasoning offered, therefore no opportunity to commit a fallacy.

Now, it would be an instance of the ad hominem fallacy to say, "Ayn Rand's philosophy is wrong because Ayn Rand was psychologically disturbed." But I don't think I said that. Actually, I think one could make that argument, but it would require a lot of intermediate steps. One would have to show that specific and crucial elements of Rand's philosophy were direct outgrowths of her psychological problems, and then show that these elements are logically invalid or empirically false. I have not attempted to do this, although it would make an interesting exercise.

Instead I've simply said that as a young person, Rand showed evidence of psychological disturbance. The evidence is her apparent admiration for a psycho killer. I also suggested, in the first post, that there is good reason to think she did not outgrow this psychological problem very quickly, if at all.

These contentions are debatable, but they are not, so far as I can see, ad hominems, or any other sort of fallacy.  Someone might object that Rand did not really admire a psycho killer and that I am misreading her comments (possible). Or someone might object that admiring a psycho killer is not evidence of psychological disturbance (doubtful). Or someone might argue that the disturbance in question was quickly resolved or was unimportant  (I would disagree, but it comes down to one's personal judgment).

Comments

[Varenius]

The only criticism I can make of your comments in this series, Michael, is that you might be emphasizing the wrong thing about Rand and Hickman. For me, the significance is not what it suggests about Rand's psychological state or judgment, but rather the question of whether people like Hickman are actually in line with -- or at least fostered by -- the values of Objectivism. That Rand pointed to him as an example of her ideal type makes one wonder if, in the real world, Objectivist values plug into and exacerbate the negative aspects of human nature that lead to twisted minds such as Hickman's.

[Michael Prescott]

Varenius,

To be honest, that same thought occurred to me. We have seen an explosive increase in the number of sociopathic killers over the last half century. The murder of strangers used to be rare; most homicides involved people who knew each other, which is why most homicides were easily solved. Now a very large number of murders involve people with no personal connection whatsoever. These are crimes motivated by a kind of random, roving hostility or a psychotic fixation on a certain "type" of victim. The killers in these cases are completely alienated, antisocial personalities.

Now, I don't want to push my thesis too far ... but some of the ideas espoused and popularized by Rand have gained wide currency throughout American society during the same half century. I'm not attributing this cultural trend to Rand alone, but she was part of it. I don't say that Rand-style ultra-individualism is all bad. It has led to some good things. But ... has injecting a quasi-Nietzschean virus into our cultural bloodstream also led to an increase in a certain type of mental disease? Has the "me"-centered, egoistic, aggressively atheistic (and, I would say, materialistic) philosophy promoted by Rand and others given us an epidemic of Hickmans?

Please understand, I'm not saying that a person sits down, reads Rand, and becomes a serial killer! Most criminals have never even heard of Ayn Rand. But when ideas become part of the very atmosphere we breathe, they may be breathed in by people who have never read a book in their lives. And some of those people may not be equipped to handle the destabilizing effects of these ideas.

I don't know if there's any truth to this notion, but yes, I have been thinking along those lines.

[Chris Cuyar]

I have been thinking about this a lot for reasons unknown to me. I don't even consider myself an Objectivist, however, I feel a great injustice has been done here.

Let's first consider the context. It is a journal, meaning it was intended only for her to read. She probably doesn't elaborate on what she finds dispicable about him, or on how his crimes were wrong, simply because she doesn't need to affirm her ethical stances to herself in a journal. (Note that this is just my hypothesis) Also, what she learned about him would have only been through newspapers, since TV was not big and neither was radio at that time. Also, it was not customary for newspapers to describe gore in print (although it may have). So basically all she would have to go on about his character are his quotes and the peoples' reaction. If she liked what he said, then it wouldn't matter what he actually did because she was in the process of character creating and analyzing society at that point to write her books.

Anyone who knows Ayn Rand's philosophy at all knows that a quote like "what is good for me is right" is much along the lines of Objectivism, although taken way out of context. Objectivism promotes rational self-interest, which argues that doing what's best for yourself (without hurting others) is what you are morally obligated to do. So, it is no wonder how a quote like that could intrigue her.

There are several arguments against rational self-interest, but that was not the intent of your argument. You attacked Ayn Rand as a person, in order to discredit her philosophy in general, which is low.

One of the first tenets of Randian ethics is that no man may initiate the use of force on another. She wrote this in open publication for all to read and in the context she thought was displayable. This stands firmly against the actions of murder, rape, robbery, etc. So to suggest that she condoned these actions or men who committed them is bunk.

Thank you

[Michael Prescott]

Chris,

If you're going to say you're not an Objectivist, you might want to choose a different email address. "Galtsgulch" is kind of a giveaway.

The gory details of Hickman's crime were indeed reported in the newspapers of the day. (They didn't call 'em the Roaring Twenties for nothin'.) Nearly all the info I presented was taken from contemporaneous newspaper accounts. Rand followed the case closely enough to know the day-by-day events of the trial, so she surely knew what Hickman had done. She just didn't care. She mentions not one word about Hickman's 12-year-old victim in all the hundreds of words she penned about the case.

If you've read Rand's journals, you know that she did present her ethical positions in detail, even when writing for herself.

Objectivists typically bend themselves into pretzel-like shapes to avoid acknowledging Rand's obvious psychological problems. The facts are, Rand knew exactly what Hickman had done and admired him anyway. Make of this what you will.

[Chris]

First, my email address has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. I have another email address labeled bodnimble@yahoo.com, does that mean I'm a man of nimbleness? I have had that email address for ages, and I would rather not change it.

Secondly, I never said Rand had a perfect psyche, and I don't know where that whole point you made came from.

Lastly, what does admiring someone have to do with your philosophy. If you are implying that Rand spouted the philosophy of killing people, then you are being ridiculous. If you are implying anything other than that, then your points are moot.

Rand may as well been a raving lunatic, it wouldn't change the fact that some of what she says is right and some was probably wrong. Any logician knows that it is the argument you evaluate not the arguer.

So I think Rand's personal life should not be included in evaluating her philosophy. Just as I don't scrutinize about how crazy Neitzche was, I wouldn't do the same with Rand either. And anyone who would is not going to get far in philosophy.