A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

demonizing

Demonizing IV: Demonic Justification

by 1 Comment

As noted in the earlier essays, demonizing is a rhetorical strategy that aims at casting the target as evil, corrupt, dangerous or threatening. Demonizing can also be used to fuel or intensify other fallacies. One such fallacy is demonic justification.

Image Credit

Demonic justification is a fallacy in which a target is demonized in order to justify how the target is being treated, such as actions taken against the target or policies enacted that are detrimental to the target. The fallacy has the following form:

Premise 1: Target person or group T is demonized.

Conclusion: Action A against T is justified.

The reason that the conclusion does not follow from the premises is that the action taken is justified by demonization rather than actual reasons. Since demonization, by definition, involves making either selective, exaggerated or false claims, demonization cannot justify an action. It must also be noted that committing this fallacy does not entail that the action is unjustified; as with any fallacy the conclusion is not disproven because it is the conclusion of a fallacy (to think otherwise is to fall victim to the fallacy fallacy).

This fallacy is, as would be expected, often used to try to justify damaging, harsh and even brutal actions or policies. It derives its power from the willingness of people to engage in demonizing and the not unreasonable belief that harsh measures must be taken against the wicked. This technique is often used in war to motivate and try to justify the killing of enemy soldiers. It is also a powerful tool in domestic politics and is often used to try to justify discriminatory and racist policies under the guise of dealing with bad people. For example, throughout history migrants have been demonized as diseased criminals who are out to steal jobs from native workers. This demonizing has been used to try to justify harsh immigration policies and even violence against migrants. As another example, Stalinists and Maoists have historically demonized their targets, thus attempting to justify their harsh and brutal measures.

The main defense against demonic justification is being aware that demonization is occurring and this can happen when one takes the time to seriously ask if the claims are true. Since people are influenced strongly by their biases, prejudices and stereotypes, this can be very challenging. People also like to believe that they are on the side of good and are battling evil, and demonization plays right into this.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Demonizing III: Demonic Genetic Fallacy

by 8 Comments

A genetic fallacy is a flawed argument that comes in negative and positive variations.  In the negative version a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken as evidence discrediting the claim or thing itself. The positive variation is an error in reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or proof that the thing is good. A Demonic Genetic Fallacy is, as would be expected, always negative.

A genetic fallacy, demonic or not, differs from the ad hominem fallacies in that a strictly defined ad hominem always targets an individual while the genetic fallacy can be used to target groups or institutions.

The demonic version of this fallacy involves two steps, the first of which distinguishes the demonic from the normal genetic fallacy.

First, the target, which is the origin of the claim or thing, is demonized. As noted in the first essay on the subject, demonizing is portraying the target as evil, corrupt, dangerous or threatening.  This can be done in the usual three ways: selective demonizing, hyperbolic demonizing or fictional demonizing. Selective demonizing is when some true negative fact about the target is focused on to the exclusion of other facts about the target.  Hyperbolic demonizing involves greatly exaggerating a negative fact about the target. Fictional demonizing is simply lying about the target. Second, the attack on the origin of the claim or thing is taken to discredit the claim or thing.

The demonic genetic fallacy has the following two forms:

Premise 1. Claim (or argument) C originates from group G.

Premise 2. Group G is demonized.

Conclusion: Therefore, C is false (or the argument fails).

Premise 1. A originated from O.

Premise 2. O is demonized.

Conclusion: A is discredited.

The reason why the demonic genetic fallacy is a fallacy is that demonizing a group or origin has no bearing on the truth of a claim, the quality of an argument or the origin of a thing. In addition to the logical error, a demonic genetic fallacy also suffers from the fact that demonizing, by definition, involves deception. At the very least, demonizing involves taking facts out of context and commonly involves outright falsehoods.

A demonic genetic fallacy can have considerable psychological force since demonizing typically goes beyond the usual attacks in a non-demonic genetic fallacies and thus can trigger strong emotions. A common tactic is to demonize the target using stereotypes the audience already accepts and by appealing to their biases, fears and prejudices. Such an audience will be inclined to accept the demonization as true and their emotional response can lead them to accept the fallacious reasoning.

There are two main defenses against demonizing. One is to be aware of the logical flaw in the fallacy. Even if the demonizing claims were true, the reasoning would still be flawed: true but irrelevant negative claims about the origin of something, no matter how terrible, do not disprove a claim or argument or prove a defect in the thing. The other is to be critical about negative claims and only accept them if they are adequately supported by evidence. One excellent example of the demonic genetic fallacy in the real world is Trumps demonizing of the media.

While Republicans have long attacked the media as having a liberal bias, Donald Trump escalated this attack to full demonization. He has gone far beyond accusing them of bias and has labeled journalist as disgusting, crooked, and dangerous. In terms of full on demonization, he has declared reporters to be “the enemy of the American people.” While Trump does attack individual journalists, this general attack on journalists is intended to discredit the claims Trump dislikes, such as accurate reporting of his lies and misdeeds. While the media certainly does suffer from the usual human biases and some journalists dislike Trump a great deal, his demonizing is generally composed of outright lies

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Demonizing II: Demonic Ad Hominem

by 3 Comments

An ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected based on some irrelevant fact about the person making the claim or argument. The demonic version of this fallacy involves two steps, the first of which distinguishes the demonic from the normal ad hominem.

First, the target of the ad hominem is demonized. As noted in the previous essay on the subject, demonizing is portraying the target as evil, corrupt, dangerous or threatening.  This can be done in the usual three ways: selective demonizing, hyperbolic demonizing or fictional demonizing. Selective demonizing is when some true negative fact about the target is focused on to the exclusion of other facts about the target.  Hyperbolic demonizing involves greatly exaggerating a negative fact about the target. Fictional demonizing is simply lying about the target. Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument in question.

The demonic ad hominem has the following form:

Premise 1. Person A makes claim X.

Premise 2. Person B demonizes person A.

Conclusion: Therefore, A’s claim is false (or A’s argument fails).

The reason why the demonic ad hominem is a fallacy is that demonizing a person has no bearing on the truth of a claim or the quality of an argument. In addition to the logical error, a demonic ad hominem also suffers from the fact that demonizing, by definition, involves deception. At the very least, demonizing involves taking facts out of context and often involves outright falsehoods.

A demonic ad hominem can have considerable psychological force since demonizing typically goes beyond the usual attacks in a non-demonic ad hominem and thus can trigger strong emotions. A common tactic is to demonize the target using stereotypes the audience already accepts and by appealing to their biases, fears and prejudices. Such an audience will be inclined to accept the demonization as true and their emotional response can lead them to accept the fallacious reasoning.

There are two main defenses against demonizing. One is to be aware of the ad hominem aspect of the fallacy. Even if the demonizing claims were true, the reasoning would still be flawed: true but irrelevant negative claims about a person, no matter how terrible, do not disprove a claim or argument. The other is to be critical about negative claims and only accept them if they are adequately supported by evidence.

Some of Trump’s defenders have used this fallacy to attack the Democrats in congress and those testifying before them. For example, when Lt. Colonel Vindman testified, he was demonized with assertions of dual loyalty and some even seemed to go so far as to cast him as a spy. The intent was to discredit his claims by lying about him. As another example, some of my Trump supporting friends on Facebook posted images featuring the false claim Schiff used taxpayer money to settle a sexual harassment case involving a 19-year old man. The intent was that Schiff’s claims and arguments should be dismissed because of this (false) claim. While some people do believe these sorts of claims, even those who do not can be influenced by them when they are repeated often enough. Laying aside the matter of logic, there is also the moral concern about such attacks and the damage they can do. Those who get demonized all too often become targets of harassment and even death threats. There is also the interesting point that if Trump is truly in the right and should no be impeached, then the truth should suffice. It must be noted that the use of these tactics does not prove that Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses, but it does suggest that he does not have the truth on his side.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Demonizing I: Demonizing

by 3 Comments

Image Credit

Many of Trump’s defenders have tried to demonize key witnesses in the impeachment hearings.  Demonizing is a rhetorical strategy that aims at casting the target as evil, corrupt, dangerous or threatening. Demonizing can also be used to fuel or intensify other fallacies. My aim is to provide a discussion of demonizing to help people recognize and, I hope, exorcise it.

By its very nature demonization is a deceitful strategy—one does not need to demonize those who are evil. The level of deception used to demonize does vary considerably. The least dishonest approach is selective demonizing. This method involves making true negative claims but is a dishonest strategy because it involves cherry picking negative aspects of a person or group and emphasizing them without context. For example, if a person is killed by the police those trying to defend the officer might assert that the person “was no angel” and focus intently on, for example, the fact they were once arrested for possession of marijuana. As another example, those trying to demonize a corporation might focus on one bad thing the company did. Selective demonizing grants its user the advantage of being able to claim that what they are saying is true—although they are engaged in deception by omission.

The problem with selective demonizing is that it ignores the full story of the person or group in favor of focusing on the negative, which is unfair. To use an analogy, it would be like a teacher selecting only your worst grades to determine your grade in a course. It is certainly fair to consider the negative aspects of a person or group, but they must be taken in context. The defense against selective demonizing is to consider the broader context.

Hyperbolic demonization involves a greater level of deceit than selective demonization, but still has some connection to truth. This is because it involves hyperbole, which is an extravagant overstatement or exaggeration. Hyperbole differs from an outright lie in that it does have a foundation in truth—but the house built on that foundation is a lie. This allows those using it to claim that what they are saying has some basis in fact. The problem is, obviously, that what they are saying is not true. For example, a person trying to demonize migrants might take the true claim that some migrants commit crimes and explode that into a hyperbolic demonization about how masses of migrants are coming to the United States to rape and murder. The defense against hyperbolic demonization is to learn the facts and resist being manipulated by the exaggeration.

Fictional demonization involves simply making up negative claims about a person or group. This is sometimes done more subtly with innuendo (a rhetorical device in which one suggests or implies something deprecatory) or by using a weasler (a rhetorical device in which one protects a claim by weakening it). For example, defenders of Trump tried to suggest that Lieutenant Colonel might be disloyal to the United States—perhaps even a spy or traitor. In other cases, the demonizing involves directly making false extreme negative claims about a person or group. For example, someone might demonize minorities by claiming that they are engaged in a white genocide.  The defense against fictional demonization is being critical of claims and only accepting them when they are backed by credible evidence—especially in cases involving strong emotional appeals.

While demonization is psychological effective, it has no logical weight. Also, by definition, it involves deception: selected truths, exaggeration or outright lies. As such, it is wise to be wary of demonization.  There is also the moral concern that demonization is typically employed in the service of evil ends. After all, the good do not need to demonize the evil. In the upcoming essays I will look at some fallacies associated with demonization.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: