Page 68 - Mike Ratner CC - WISR Complete Dissertation - v6

hominem reasoning (discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his

statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between

individual persons and morality (or moral claims) and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the

apodictic reasoning (involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical

naturalism. (Taylor, 1995)

Figure 1.1. Paul Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement lists ad hominem as the second lowest type

of argument in a disagreement. From How to Disagree, by P. Graham, Copyright 2008, as cited in

CreateDebate.com. Retrieved from http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-

arguments/index.html. Copyright 2008, by CreateDebate.com user Loudacris.

Graham’s reasoning for classifying the many forms of disagreement is that it will help

people to evaluate what they hear and say. It will help them to see through intellectually dishonest

arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent

merely by using forceful words. In fact, that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By

49