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!
Eat Meat... Or Don't.
Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?
As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.
In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.
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.
