argumentum ad odium
Description: Substituting spite (petty ill will or hatred with the disposition to irritate, annoy, or thwart) for evidence in an argument, or as a reason to support or reject a claim.
Logical Form:
Claim X is made.
Claim X is associated with thing Y that people feel spite towards.
Therefore, X is true / false.
Example #1:
Aren't you tired of the political divisiveness in this country? Republicans know what they are talking about when it comes to immigration. Don't you agree?
Explanation: This is a slick way of having someone agree with your claim. The arguer began by introducing a common idea that many people despise—political divisiveness (thing Y). Then, made a claim (claim X) in which the person would have to show political divisiveness to reject, in effect, causing the person to substitute spite in the idea of political divisiveness for reason.
Example #2:
Jon: Why should I bother exercising while my spouse is on vacation stuffing her face with food.
Explanation: The reasons for exercising are independent of the Jon's wife's actions. The claim here is that Jon should not bother exercising. The claim is associated with the idea that his wife is "stuffing her face with food" (something Jon feels spite towards). Jon concludes that he shouldn't exercise. If Jon were using reason rather than the emotion of spite, he would find another reason not to exercise—like the fact that he is too far behind on The Golden Girls reruns.
Exception: This doesn't apply to emotional, relatively insignificant arguments.
Sib: Dude, can you give me a ride to the mall?
Eddie: You mean in my car about which you said it was "just slightly better than getting around on a drunk donkey"?
Sib: Yea.
Eddie. No. You are not worthy of a ride in my fine automobile.
The claim is that Sib is not worthy of a ride in Eddie's car (an emotional/subjective claim). Although Eddie appeals to spite in his reason, he has the right to in this case.
Tip: Be happy. Avoid spite in all of its forms.
References:
Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (1997). Critical Thinking Instructor’s Manual: The Logical Accessory. Mayfield Publishing Company.
Questions about this fallacy? Ask our community!
Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.
This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.
Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.
Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
