[Buddha-l] Evil

[Alberto Todeschini]

Richard Hayes wrote:

> A vicious attack on the character of a Scottish  
> philosopher is not considered a fallacy (unless it is done by an  
> Englishman). This is the single exception to the rule that ad hominem  
> arguments are informally fallacious.

The argumentum ad hominem originally was different from what is today
considered to be an ad hominem and wasn't a fallacy. It was used by the
likes of Galileo, Locke, Thomas Reid and Richard Whately. Whately
defined it thus:

"in the argumentum ad hominem, the conclusion which actually is
established, is not the absolute and general one in question, but
relative and particular, viz. not that 'such and such is the fact,' but
that 'this man is bound to admit it in conformity to his principles of
reasoning, or consistency with his own conduct, situation,' etc."

The philosopher Harry Johnstone even claimed that "all valid
philosophical arguments are ad hominem."

Off-topically yours,

Alberto Todeschini