Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site aero.ARPA
Path: utzoo!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!zeus
From: zeus@aero.ARPA (Dave Suess)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: a task ... Nazis, again
Message-ID: <219@aero.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 20-Jan-86 03:19:50 EST
Article-I.D.: aero.219
Posted: Mon Jan 20 03:19:50 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Jan-86 02:20:32 EST
References: <1100@oddjob.UUCP> <380@cisden.UUCP> <387@cisden.UUCP> <210@aero.ARPA> <420@cisden.UUCP>
Reply-To: zeus@aero.UUCP (Dave Suess)
Distribution: na
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Lines: 135
Keywords: Nazis, specious arguments
Summary: No, Nazis still aren't legitimate argument

In article <420@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes:
>The main reason for referring to Nazis in a rational discussion of abortion
>is this, that they believed that killing innocent people in some instances
>was morally okay, but that all civilized people (and everyone in this
>discussion) agree that they were murderers, i.e. that their morality was
>*wrong*.  (I'll cheerfully use some other example if you suggest a similar
>one.)

1. I think Nazis did *not* believe in killing innocent people; rather, their
ignoble morality classified Jews as non-innocent, non-people.
2. "all civilized people" sounds suspiciously ad populum, and to say that
the Nazis' morality was "wrong" begs the question of right and wrong in the
context of moral systems.
3. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the "rational" (say, non-emotional)
refutation of the original argument (that since anti-abortion laws impose
one's morality on others, so anti-abortion laws are a "bad thing") does
NOT require an example with Nazis and Jews, it merely requires a counter-
example that refutes the hidden premise (all impositions of one's morality
on others are a "bad thing").  So, another example is NOT needed.  If a
*rational* argument is to be pursued, one can use the *general* case of
murder, and leave out an example that has historically been used to 
evoke emotional responses.

>       This example is potentially illuminating for two reasons:
>		...
>
>	2.  Many (not all) of the arguments that are used in favour of
>	  abortion have logical flaws in them.  (This is of course true
>	  of many arguments on our side, too.)  Often these logical
>	  flaws can be exposed by showing that the same line of logic
>	  can be used to conclude that the Nazis' killing of Jews was
>	  morally licit.  If this can be done (and it often can) it
>	  shows *not* that abortion is always wrong, but that the
>	  particular pro-abortion argument being paralleled was
>	  illogical.  (This kind of proof is called _reductio_ad_
>	  absurdum_.)  And the Nazis are a particularly handy group to
>	  use for this purpose not because of any emotions involved,
>	  but simply because the immorality of their doctrine is one of
>	  the few things we can all agree on without much discussion.

But, as I claim, the argument was not illogical, it suffered from an
incorrect premise.  The reductio_ad_absurdum is difficult to see here, if
the same form of argument is assumed:
	p1: all anti-murder laws are impositions of one's morality on others
	p2: all such impositions are "bad things"
	 C: all anti-murder laws are "bad things"

Where is it required that Nazis and Jews appear in this attempt?  All that
is required is to show that the second premise is faulty, and the conclusion
no longer holds.  I claim that using Nazis and Jews is an argument by 
analogy and an appeal to emotions: Nazis and Jews are *not* required to
refute the original argument.  The attempted refutation uses guilt by
association and tacitly includes the assumption that the Nazis' doctrine
is *immoral* (at least, that is what is claimed above: not so tacit, I guess).

>
>So in article <210@aero.ARPA> zeus@aero.UUCP (Dave Suess) has apparently
>misunderstood what I was getting at.  He writes, at first quoting me:

Now we're getting somewhere.  THIS looks like argumentum_ad_hominem (abusive).
Let me claim that I understood what you were getting at, but that I didn't
agree with *how* you got to where you were getting at.

>
>>>And again, so is murder a moral issue.  If some Nazi actually thinks it's
>>>okay to go around shooting Jews, I'm not going to argue that he should
>>>be allowed to because, after all, you can't force morality on people
>>>who don't want it.  I don't care whether the Nazi *wants* to be subject
>>>to my morality -- I'm going to do the best I can to impose it on him and
>>>thereby protect his victims.  
>>
>>Every year, I ask that the Nazis be left out of arguments (since it lends
>>an air of emotionalism based on what is often a side issue).  Here, even
>>though the subject is murder (in a general sense), there is an analogy where
>>1) pro-choice-for-abortion equates with "Nazi", and 2) foetus equates with
>>"Jew".  Murder in general is quite different than a racist variant, and
>>using Nazis and Jews would seem, as usual, inappropriate.  Nobody mentioned 
>>aborting just Jewish foetuses, after all.
>
>What I wrote wasn't meant to be emotional.  It's a _reductio_ad_absurdum_
>using precisely the same logic as the argument it refutes, but reaching a
>conclusion we all agree is false.
>

But, as I can claim, the argument is logically valid, it is one premise that
needs to be refuted, not the form of the argument.  The conclusion cannot
be reached with an incorrect premise, so it is *not* proved false.  We (I
speak of the rational parallel here, that anti-murder laws are "bad") agree
that the conclusion is "false", but it is not due to the argument advanced
or its refutation.  Whether the use of Nazis and Jews was meant to be 
emotional or not is not at issue here; rather, I claim that, regardless of
intent, the use of Nazis and Jews in this argument is superfluous and 
*does* appeal to the emotions.  

>>There is a place for Nazis-Jews references here, but the context should be
>>ideologies of Nazis and Jews as they pertain to abortion.  And recall that
>>the Nazis were very much anti-abortion (for German-Aryans), expressing the
>>opinion that, for the good of the state, women should be making more and
>>more German-Aryans (more soldiers, and more soldier-mothers, presumably).
>>
>>[See how easy it is?  My comments equate anti-abortion with "Nazi" now,
>>when really I should have left it at the "good of society" argument, without
>>painting it with the emotion of "Nazis!"  Hence, my above paragraph is
>>specious, and should never be cited as an argument on these issues.]
>
>Yes, I agree.  Your argument is an _argumentum_ad_hominem_, saying (falsely,
>by the way) that the Nazis were anti-abortion, and implying a connection
>with today's anti-abortion forces.  As you point out, this is illogical,
>specious even.  But it's not what I did.

Well, my example was *not* an argument: I didn't advance any conclusions
(if I did, they would probably have been guilt by association).  I claim
that what you did was to use Nazis and Jews for no necessary reason; I
claim further that use of Nazis and Jews for no necessary reason is most
likely an appeal to the emotions.  I dispute your classification of an
ad_hominem here: I didn't use an argument, and the example I gave was
directed at no one else in the argument (no one at all, really).  

Almost finally, it is easy for you to assert that my statement about the
Nazis' stand on abortion is false, but I have evidence to the contrary.
Hitler closed the birth-control clinics, the Nazis were adamantly 
anti-feminist, anti-abortion, anti-birth-control, anti-homosexual (for 
German-Aryans only, of course).  I might ask you to back up your throw-
away comment, but the point is this:

	rational argument does not need Nazis and Jews
	the views of Nazis on abortion are irrelevant

So, again, I appeal to the net: leave out emotional Nazi-Jews side-issues
or any claim to rational argument can be attacked as specious when they
are used by analogy to abortion.  It shouldn't be so hard: if the Nazis
and Jews aren't being used as appeals to emotion, then a sufficient 
number of legitimate, non-emotional arguments can be substituted.

Dave (not falsely, by the way) Suess		zeus@aero2.arpa