wiki143 - User contributions [en]

Bulverism

2025-06-18T15:33:30Z

68.69.149.6:

{{short description|Type of logical fallacy}}
'''Bulverism''' is a rhetorical [[fallacy]] that combines [[circular reasoning]], the [[genetic fallacy]], [[ad hominem]] and presumption or condescension. The Bulverist [[Presupposition|assumes]] that a speaker's argument is false or invalid and then explains why the speaker made that argument (even if said argument is actually correct) by [[ad hominem#Circumstantial|attacking the speaker]] or the speaker's [[appeal to motive|motive]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Meynell |first=Hugo |date=July 1977 |title=Three Sophistical Devices |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001258067709532006 |journal=The Downside Review |language=en |volume=95 |issue=320 |pages=226–230 |doi=10.1177/001258067709532006 |issn=0012-5806|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Similar to [[Antony Flew]]'s "subject/motive shift", Bulverism is a [[fallacy of irrelevance]]—one accuses an argument of being wrong based solely on the arguer's identity or motive (real or presumed), but these are ultimately irrelevant to the argument's factual validity or truth.

The term ''Bulverism'' was coined by [[C. S. Lewis]] after an imaginary character{{Sfn | Lewis | 1971 | p = 225}} to poke fun at a serious error in thinking that, he alleged, frequently occurred in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates.

==Source of the concept==
Lewis wrote about this in a 1941 essay,<ref>{{Citation | last = Lewis | first = Clive Staples | author-link = C. S. Lewis | title = Notes on the Way | newspaper = Time and Tide | volume = XXII | date = 29 March 1941}}.</ref>{{Sfn | Lewis | 1971 | p = xv}} which was later expanded and published in 1944 in ''The Socratic Digest'' under the title "Bulverism".<ref>{{Citation | last = Lewis | first = Clive Staples | author-link = C. S. Lewis | journal = The Socratic digest | title = Bulverism | number = 2 |date=June 1944 | pages = 16–20}}.</ref>{{Sfn | Lewis | 1971 | page = xv}} This was reprinted both in ''Undeceptions'' and the more recent anthology ''[[God in the Dock]]'' in 1970. He explains the origin of this term:{{Sfn | Lewis | 1971 | p = 223}}

{{Blockquote
|text = Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant—but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
<p>
You must show ''that'' a man is wrong before you start explaining ''why'' he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion ''that'' he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father—who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third—"Oh you say that ''because you are a man''." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
</p>
|author=C. S. Lewis
|source=''Bulverism''
}}

==Threat and remedy==
The special threat of this fallacy lies in that it applies equally to the person who errs as to that person's opponent. Taken to its logical consequence, it implies that all arguments are unreliable and hence undermines all rational thought. Lewis says, "Until Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs. Each side snatches it early as a weapon against the other; but between the two reason itself is discredited."{{Sfn | Lewis | 1971 | p = 225}}

The remedy, according to Lewis, is to accept that some reasoning is not tainted by the reasoner.{{Sfn | Lewis | 1971 | p = 226}} Some arguments are valid and some conclusions true, regardless of the identity and motives of the one who argues them.

== See also ==
* [[Appeal to motive]]
* [[Circular reasoning]]
* [[Genetic fallacy]]
* [[Critical theory]]
* [[Structuralism]]
* [[Postmodernism]]
* [[Post-structuralism]]
* [[Deconstruction]]
* [[Lacanianism]]
* [[Pierre Bourdieu]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist}}

==Bibliography==
* {{Citation | last = Lewis | first = Clive Staples | author-link = C. S. Lewis | title = Undeceptions: Essays on Theology and Ethics | editor-last = Hooper | editor-first = Walter | place = London | publisher = Geoffrey Bles | year = 1971}}.

==External links==
* {{Citation | last = Lewis | first = Clive Staples | author-link = C. S. Lewis | year = 1994 | orig-year = 1970 | url = http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20040519070713/http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html | url-status = usurped | archive-date = May 19, 2004 | title = God in the Dock | publisher = William B Eerdmans | place = Grand Rapids, MI | website = Barking Moonbat | format = online full text | type = essay | access-date = 10 September 2016}}.
* {{Citation | contribution-url = http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2006/03/bulverism-and-afr.html | contribution = Bulverism and the Argument From Reason | first = Victor | last = Reppert | author-link = Victor Reppert |date=Mar 2006 | title = Dangerous idea | publisher = Google | type=blog}}.

{{Fallacies}}

[[Category:Relevance fallacies]]
[[Category:Deductive reasoning]]
[[Category:C. S. Lewis]]

Wisdom of repugnance

2025-06-13T20:06:49Z

68.69.149.6: /* Reactions and criticism */

{{Short description|Concept asserting that feelings of disgust can indicate moral truth or wisdom}}
The '''wisdom of repugnance''' or '''appeal to disgust''',<ref>{{cite interview |first = Martha |last = Nussbaum |author-link = Martha Nussbaum |interviewer = [[Reason (magazine)|Reason]] |title = Discussing Disgust |url = http://reason.com/archives/2004/07/15/discussing-disgust |date = July 15, 2004 |access-date = September 5, 2012}}</ref> also known informally as the '''yuck factor''',<ref name="Cohen 2008">{{Cite news|author=Cohen, Patricia|title=Economists Dissect the 'Yuck' Factor|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/arts/31gross.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin |work=[[The New York Times]]|date=Jan 31, 2008}}</ref> is the belief that an [[Intuition (knowledge)|intuitive]] (or "deep-seated") negative response to some thing, idea, or practice should be interpreted as [[evidence]] for the [[intrinsic]]ally harmful or [[evil]] character of that thing. Furthermore, it refers to the notion that [[wisdom]] may manifest itself in feelings of [[disgust]] towards anything which lacks [[Goodness and value theory|goodness]] or wisdom, though the feelings or the reasoning of such 'wisdom' may not be immediately explicable through [[reason]].

==Origin and usage==
{{Quote box|quote="Revulsion is not an argument; and some of yesterday’s abhorrences are today calmly accepted—not always for the better. In some crucial cases, however, repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason’s power completely to articulate it. [...] [W]e intuit and we feel, immediately and without argument, the violation of things that we rightfully hold dear. [...] [R]evulsion may be the only voice left that speaks up to defend the central core of our humanity. Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder."|author = Leon Kass<ref name="Kass 2002">{{Cite book|last=Kass|first=Leon R.|title=Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics|year=2002|publisher=Encounter Books|location = San Francisco|isbn=1-893554-55-4|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/lifelibertydefen00leon}}, p. 150</ref>|bgcolor=Cornsilk|width=30%|align=right|salign=right}}
The term "<includeonly>[[</includeonly>wisdom of repugnance<includeonly>]]</includeonly>" was coined in 1997 by [[Leon Kass]], chairman (2001–2005) of the [[President's Council on Bioethics]], in an article in ''[[The New Republic]]'',<ref name="Kass 1997">{{Cite magazine|author=Kass, Leon R.|title=The Wisdom of Repugnance|magazine=[[The New Republic]]|volume=216|issue=22 |date=June 2, 1997 |pages=17–26|publisher=[[CanWest]]|location=[[Washington, DC]]|author-link=Leon Kass}}</ref> which was later expanded into a further (2001) article in the same magazine,<ref name="Kass 2001">{{Cite magazine|last=Kass|first=Leon R|title=Preventing a Brave New World: Why We Should Ban Human Cloning Now|magazine=The New Republic|date=May 21, 2001|volume=224|issue=21|pages=30–39}}</ref> and also incorporated into his 2002 book ''Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity''.

<noinclude>The term originated in discussions of [[bioethics]]. It is often used by those who accept its underlying premise; i.e., that repugnance does, in fact, indicate wisdom. It is thus often viewed as [[loaded language]], and is primarily used by certain [[Bioconservatism|bioconservatives]] to justify their position.

The concept is also used in the study of controversies such as [[same-sex marriage]],<ref>{{cite journal |title=Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals. |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |year=2010 | last1=Terrizzi | first1=John A. Jr. |last2=Shook |first2=Natalie J. |last3=Ventis |first3=W. Larry |volume=49 |issue=6 |pages=587–592 |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.024 }}</ref><ref name="Smith 2011 p. ">{{cite book | last=Smith | first=David | title=Less than human : why we demean, enslave, and exterminate others | url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780312532727 | url-access=registration | publisher=St. Martin's Press | location=New York | year=2011 | isbn=978-0-312-53272-7 | oclc=651912610 }}</ref><ref name="Frank 2014">{{cite web | last=Frank | first=Nathaniel | title=How the Mind Rationalizes Homophobia | website=The Atlantic | date=2014-02-21 | url=https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/how-the-mind-rationalizes-homophobia/283998/ | access-date=2019-09-11}}</ref> [[pornography]],<ref name="Fleischman Hamilton Fessler Meston p=e0118151">{{cite journal | last1=Fleischman | first1=Diana S. | last2=Hamilton | first2=Lisa Dawn | last3=Fessler | first3=Daniel M. T. | last4=Meston | first4=Cindy M. | editor-last=Mazza | editor-first=Marianna | title=Disgust versus Lust: Exploring the Interactions of Disgust and Fear with Sexual Arousal in Women | journal=PLOS ONE | publisher=Public Library of Science (PLoS) | volume=10 | issue=6 | date=2015-06-24 | issn=1932-6203 | pmid=26106894 | pmc=4479551 | doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0118151 | page=e0118151| bibcode=2015PLoSO..1018151F | doi-access=free }}</ref> [[marijuana legalization]],<ref name="Bostwick 2012 pp. 172–186">{{cite journal | last=Bostwick | first=J. Michael | title=Blurred Boundaries: The Therapeutics and Politics of Medical Marijuana | journal=Mayo Clinic Proceedings | publisher=Elsevier BV | volume=87 | issue=2 | year=2012 | issn=0025-6196 | pmid=22305029 | pmc=3538401 | doi=10.1016/j.mayocp.2011.10.003 | pages=172–186}}</ref> [[alternative sexuality|alternative sexualities]]<ref name="Brown Gershon pp. 1–3">{{cite journal | last1=Brown | first1=Nadia | last2=Gershon | first2=Sarah Allen | title=Body politics | journal=Politics, Groups, and Identities | publisher=Informa UK Limited | volume=5 | issue=1 | date=2017-01-02 | issn=2156-5503 | doi=10.1080/21565503.2016.1276022 | pages=1–3| doi-access=free }}</ref> and legalization of [[abortion]].<ref>{{cite journal |title=Abortion and disgust |journal=Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review |year=2013 |last=Cahill |first=Courtney Megan |s2cid=29966755 |url=http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ff20/4715b679252c5c6aef6f8e4867be389ef76c.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190307192446/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ff20/4715b679252c5c6aef6f8e4867be389ef76c.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=2019-03-07 |access-date=2019-09-11 }}</ref> In all cases, it expresses the view that one's "[[Feeling#Gut|gut reaction]]" might justify objecting to some practice even in the absence of a persuasive rational (e.g., [[Utilitarianism|utilitarian]]) case against that practice.</noinclude>

==Reactions and criticism==
{{Human enhancement sidebar|opposition}}
The wisdom of repugnance has been criticized, both as an example of a [[Fallacy|fallacious]] [[appeal to emotion]] and for an underlying premise which seems to reject [[rationalism]]. Although mainstream science concedes that a sense of [[disgust]] most likely [[Evolution|evolved]] as a useful [[defence mechanisms|defense mechanism]] (e.g. in that it tends to prevent or prohibit potentially harmful behaviour such as [[inbreeding]], [[Cuckold|cuckoldry]], [[Human cannibalism|cannibalism]], and [[coprophagia]]), social psychologists question whether the instinct can serve any moral or logical value when removed from the context in which it was originally acquired.

[[Martha Nussbaum]] explicitly opposes the concept of a disgust-based [[morality]] as an appropriate guide for law and policy, instead siding with [[John Stuart Mill]]'s [[harm principle]] as the proper basis for limiting individual liberties, which supports the legal ideas of [[consent]], the [[age of majority]], [[privacy]], and bestows equal rights unto citizens. Nussbaum argues that the "politics of disgust" is merely an unreliable emotional reaction which has been used throughout history as a justification for [[persecution]]—[[racism]], [[antisemitism]], [[sexism]], and [[homophobia]] have all been driven by popular repulsion.<ref name="Nussbaum 2004">{{Cite web|author=Nussbaum, Martha C.|url= http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i48/48b00601.htm |title=Danger to Human Dignity: The Revival of Disgust and Shame in the Law|work=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]]|date=August 6, 2004|access-date=2007-11-24|location=Washington, DC|author-link= Martha Nussbaum}}</ref> In an interview with ''[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]]'' magazine, she elaborated:

{{blockquote|Disgust and shame are inherently [[Hierarchy|hierarchical]]; they set up ranks and orders of human beings. They are also inherently connected with restrictions on [[liberty]] in areas of non-harmful conduct. For both of these reasons, I believe, anyone who cherishes the key democratic values of [[egalitarianism|equality]] and liberty should be deeply suspicious of the appeal to those emotions in the context of law and [[public policy]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/33316.html|title=Discussing Disgust|work=Reason.com|date=2004-07-15|access-date=February 22, 2008|archive-date=February 18, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080218040129/https://www.reason.com/news/show/33316.html|url-status=live}}</ref>}}

[[Stephen Jay Gould]] has remarked that "our prejudices often overwhelm our limited information. [They] are so venerable, so reflexive, so much a part of our second nature, that we never stop to recognize their status as social decisions with radical alternatives—and we view them instead as given and obvious truths."<ref name="Gould 1997">{{Cite book|author=Gould, Stephen Jay|year=1997|title=Full House: The Spread of Excellence From Plato to Darwin|publisher=Harmony|isbn=0-517-70849-3|author-link=Stephen Jay Gould|title-link=Full House: The Spread of Excellence From Plato to Darwin}}</ref>

British bioethicist [[John Harris (bioethicist)|John Harris]] replied to Kass's view by arguing that, "there is no necessary connection between phenomena, attitudes, or actions that make us uneasy, or even those that disgust us, and those phenomena, attitudes, and actions that there are good reasons for judging unethical. Nor does it follow that those things we are confident are unethical must be prohibited by legislation or regulation."<ref name="Harris 1998">{{Cite book|author=Harris, John|title=Clones, Genes, and Immortality: Ethics and the Genetic Revolution|location=[[Oxford, England|Oxford]]|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|year=1998|page=[https://archive.org/details/clonesgenesimmor0000harr/page/37 37]|isbn=0-19-288080-2|author-link=John Harris (bioethicist)|url=https://archive.org/details/clonesgenesimmor0000harr/page/37}}</ref>

The word ''[[wiktionary:squick|squick]]'' was created within [[BDSM]] subculture in reaction to this sort of reasoning, and denotes a "gut reaction" of disgust without the implication of any sort of actual moral judgment.<ref name="DTDSquick">{{Cite web|url= http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/squick/ |title=Squick|work=Double-Tongued Dictionary|date=June 23, 2005|access-date=2007-11-24|editor=Barrett, Grant|location=[[Brooklyn, NY]]|publisher=Grant Barrett}}</ref>

In ''[[The Righteous Mind|The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion]]'', psychologist [[Jonathan Haidt]] cites Kass' argument as typifying concerns of moral degradation, which he contrasts with "[[Elevation (emotion)|moral elevation]]". Haidt, drawing from research by [[Emile Durkheim]], [[Robert Putnam]] and Richard Sosis, argues that humans' ability to unite around sacred beliefs and practices—even in the absence of immediate utilitarian benefits—is an essential component of human civilizations which facilitates moral elevation, in-group cooperation and social belongingness. Without "binding" moral and sacred values, individuals tend to draw inward and [[Anomie|exhibit fewer prosocial behaviours]]. Consequently, Haidt proposes that moral disgust and taboos may be justified in certain, culturally-specific cases wherein they can promote [[social capital]] without significantly negatively impacting the rights of many individuals, citing laws against incest (even with no risk of procreation), flag-burning, [[Zoophilia|bestiality]] and [[Armin Meiwes|consensual cannibalism]] as examples:<ref name="Haidt 2012">{{Cite book|author=Haidt, Jonathan|title=The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion|location=[[New York, America|New York]]|publisher=[[Pantheon Books]]|year=2012}}</ref>

{{blockquote|[In] [[Lawrence v. Texas]], [Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]'s] dissent was that: 'If we allow homosexuality, what's next? Incest, bestiality...' To which I would say: since 5% of people are gay, that's {{em|a lot}} of people, and we really need to try to [overcome the disgust]. The number of people who can't live a full and decent life unless they have sex with a sheep? Now, that's not very many people... If [repugnance] does some good to have a sense that there are still some morals we share, and there are few people out there who can't be happy, I'm willing to let them be unhappy.<ref name="Reason 2013">{{Cite web|url= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmz10uQsTYE&ab_channel=ReasonTV |title=It's Hard to Gross Out a Libertarian: Jonathan Haidt on Sex, Politics, and Disgust|work=ReasonTV|date=February 26, 2013|access-date=2023-12-09}}</ref>}}

==See also==
*[[Appeal to emotion]]
*[[Ethical intuitionism]]
*[[Emotivism]], which claims that all statements like "X is morally wrong" only express repugnance, not moral facts
*[[Moral panic]]
*[[Repugnancy costs]]
*[[Repugnant market]]
*[[Uncanny valley]]
*[[Victimless crime]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==General references==
{{Refbegin}}
*{{Cite web |title=Problems of Transhumanism: The Unsustainable Autonomy of Reason |last=Hughes |first=James J. |work=Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies |date=8 January 2010 |url=https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/hughes20100108/ |access-date=10 September 2019 |quote=...there is likewise no rational reason why society should reject taboos and superstition in favor of a transhuman future; value judgments in favor of tradition, faith, and taboo, or in favor of progress, reason, and liberty both stem from pre-rational premises...We need to learn the courage to acknowledge that...Reason is a good tool but that our values and moral codes are not grounded in Reason. |author-link=James Hughes (sociologist) }}
*{{Cite book|last=McGee|first=Glenn|title=The Perfect Baby: A Pragmatic Approach to Genetics|edition=2nd|isbn=0-8476-9759-2|year=2000|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|location=[[New York, NY]]|chapter="Playing God: Fears About Genetic Engineering"|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/perfectbabyparen0000mcge}} [http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/285/5/656 Reviewed] in ''The Journal of the American Medical Association'' (subscription required; access date November 24, 2007)
*{{Cite web|author=Bloom, Paul|url= https://www.theguardian.com/life/feature/story/0,13026,1265921,00.html |title=To Urgh Is Human|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=July 22, 2004|pages="Science" section|access-date=2007-11-24|location=[[London, England|London]] and [[Manchester, England|Manchester]]|author-link= Paul Bloom (professor)}}
{{Refend}}

{{Fallacies}}

[[Category:Bioethics]]
[[Category:Appeals to emotion]]
[[Category:Causal fallacies]]
[[Category:Ignorance]]
[[Category:Prejudices]]
[[Category:Barriers to critical thinking]]