Argument Critics Quote by Robert Carroll
““Perhaps the most common ad hominem fallacy is to attack the motives of the person making the argument. Critics of judicial decisions often cite suspected motives of a judge that might bias his or her decision, as if the judge’s motives were relevant to the cogency of the judge’s argument for making the decision. Even a biased judge can make a cogent argument in defense of a ruling. In any case, you can’t refute an argument by accusing the arguer of being biased. The bias of the arguer is irrelevant to whether the premises support the conclusion. People with good motives sometimes make fallacious arguments, and people with bad motives sometimes make good arguments.””
About This Quote
Source Article: Logical Fallacies in Judicial Reasoning, 2015
Attacking a person's motives does not invalidate the logical strength of their argument; relevance lies in the premises and conclusion, not bias.
In simple terms: Motives are irrelevant to argument validity.
Key Takeaway
Focus on logical structure, not personal bias.
Themes
logic
argumentation
bias
critical thinking
Mood
analytical
skeptical
Type
philosophical
educational
When to use this quote
- courtroom debates
- political discourse
- media commentary
- academic writing
Key Concepts
ad hominem
relevance
argument validity
Questions to Reflect On
- How can we separate a speaker’s character from their claims?
- When is it appropriate to consider motive in evaluating an argument?
A Different Perspective
Bias can affect perception of credibility, even if the argument is sound.
