|
''Reductio ad Hitlerum'', also ''argumentum ad Hitlerum'' (Latin for "reduction to Hitler", where ''Hitlerum'' serves as the accusative case of Adolf Hitler's surname in Latin) is a term coined by German-American philosopher Leo Strauss in 1951. According to Strauss, the ''Reductio ad Hitlerum'' is a humorous observation where someone compares an opponent's views with those that would be held by Hitler or the Nazi Party. According to Strauss, ''Reductio ad Hitlerum'' is a form of ''ad hominem'' or ''ad misericordiam'', a fallacy of irrelevance, in which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something's or someone's origin rather than its current meaning. The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. Its name is a variation on the term ''reductio ad absurdum''. ''Reductio ad Hitlerum'' is sometimes called "playing the Nazi card". According to its critics and proponents, it is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent, as Hitler and Nazism are seen as unpopular in the modern Western world. ==Fallacious nature== ''Reductio ad Hitlerum'' is a form of association fallacy.〔 The argument is that a policy leads to or is the same as one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable. Although some policies (particularly eugenics) ''have'' been abandoned in part owing to such comparisons, the fallacious nature of ''reductio ad Hitlerum'' is easily illustrated by identifying ''X'' as something that Adolf Hitler or his supporters did promote but which is not considered unethical by many, such as painting (like Winston Churchill), enjoying classical music (like some of the July 20 plotters), owning dogs (like Franklin Delano Roosevelt), advocating good roads (like Dwight Eisenhower), demonstrating nationalistic patriotism (David Ben-Gurion), speaking well (like Martin Luther King), or having difficulty with existing authorities (like Mohandas Gandhi), all of whom were either enemies of Hitler or ideological opposites. For example: "Hitler loved animals, so animal protection is a National Socialist activity (the things Hitler are seen as wrong, or because it could lead to results ideologically or morally aligned with Hitler )." Used broadly enough, ''ad Hitlerum'' can encompass more than one questionable-cause fallacy type, by both inverting cause and effect and by linking an alleged cause to wholly unrelated consequences. For example, Hitler was fond of children,〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Liberty Magazine )〕 but to argue that affection for children is wrong on this basis is not persuasive. Another instance of ''reductio ad Hitlerum'' is asking a question of the form "You know who else...?" with the deliberate intent of impugning a certain idea or action by implying Hitler held that idea or performed such action. The phrase is often used ironically for its humorous effect. An invocation of Hitler or Nazism is not a ''Reductio ad Hitlerum'' when it illuminates the argument instead of causing distraction from it.〔, (Reduction ad Hitlerum: Trumping the Judicial Nazi Card ). Michigan State Law Review, Vol. 2009, p. 541-578, 2009〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Reductio ad Hitlerum」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|