FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE

Bayos, Justine Ivan B.

Sangga, Herbert
What are the types of fallacies of irrelevance?
• Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
a. Abusive
b. Circumstantial
• Argumentum Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
• Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
• Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)
a. Arguing in Circle
b. Question-Begging-Language
c. Complex Question
d. Leading Question
Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
• Ignores the issue by focusing on certain personal characteristics of an
opponent
• Makes opponent the issue
• Shifts attention from the argument to the arguer
• This fallacy has two kinds: (1) abusive and (2) circumstantial
 ABUSIVE
• Attacks the argument based on the arguer’s reputation, personality or
some personal shortcoming
E.g.
According to this action star, he supports the death penalty because it
is an effective deterrence against murder. This is nonsense. He is just an
actor and knows nothing about death penalty. Besides, he likes
violence as shown by his movies which depict a lot of killings.
 CIRCUMSTANTIAL
• Defending one’s position by accusing his or her critic or other people
of doing the same thing
• Also called tu quoque or “you’re another” or “you yourself do it”
E.g.
In Santos vs. Aranzanso, private respondents filed a civil case against
petitioner praying that the decree of adoption entered into the latter’s
favor be declared null and void ab initio on the ground that the
application for adoption was not signed by both adopting parents, by
the natural parents, and that the judgment was procured by means of
fraud.
 CIRCUMSTANTIAL
x x x Also, she contended that if the spouses were alive, they would
never question the adoption because what is more important for them
is the welfare of their adopted daughters.
Held:
While the High Court granted the petition due to jurisdictional grounds
it observed that the statement is an argumentum ad hominem since it
attributes, without basis, an attitude to someone long dead which
cannot be verified. It does not deserve consideration
Argumentum Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
• Judge is persuaded to accept an argument not for its strength but
because of the counsel’s emotional appeal to pity
• Convinces people to by evoking feelings of compassion and sympathy
when such feelings, however understandable, are not logically
relevant to the arguer’s conclusion
Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
• Persuading others to accept a position by using threat or pressure
instead of presenting evidence for one’s view
E.g.
In Sy vs. Fineza, the petitioner who was then facing trial for estafa
before Fineza’s sala, accused the judge of bribery, grave misconduct,
conduct unbecoming of a judge and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service.
Sy, alleged that Fineza demanded money from her in exchange for
dismissing the case against her. When she failed to pay the complete
amount, Fineza began harassing her by raising her bail.
Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
Was the judge administratively liable?
Held: The High Court suspended Fineza, his actions according to the
Supreme Court, constituted abuse of authority.
Aside from his arrogant and intemperate language, which stressed was
not the proper decorum expected of judges, Fineza was suspended for
acting with malice and bad faith when he raised the bail of the accused.
Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)
• Even though the conclusion is clearly not justified by the premises,
the listener is, in effect “begged” to accept it
• Somehow there appears to be evidentiary support, but what seems
to be an evidence is actually a form of conclusion in disguise
• There are four (4) different types of this fallacy: (1) arguing in circle,
(2) question-begging-language, (3) complex question, and (4) leading
question
 Arguing in Circle
• States or “assumes as a premise the very thing that should be proven
in the conclusion”
E.g.
Gina: This person has committed bribery
Jeff: What reasons do you have that will convince me that your claim is
true?
Gina: Because he tried to influence a public official
 Question-Begging-Language
• Consists in “discussing an issue by means of language that assumes
the position of the very question at issue, in such a way as to direct
the listener to that same conclusion”
E.g.
Prosecutor to witness: “Would you tell us, Ms. Diaz, about the nature of
your relationship with the rapist, Mr. Sanchez?”
 Complex Question
• Asking a question in which some presuppositions are buried in that
question
E.g.
Would you allow a criminal to roam around your village?
When did your grudge on the accused start?
Were you and your brother went to the mall with victim and gave him
the drug?
 Leading Question
• Directing the respondent to give a particular answer to a question at
issue by the manner in which the question is asked
• Contains unsupported claim, in that it unjustifiably assumes a
position on what is probably a debatable, or at least an open, issue
E.g.
You were outside the country when the crime was committed, weren’t
you?
 Reference
• Legal Logic. Francis Julius N. Evangelista & David Robert C. Aquino.
Central Book Supply Inc., 927 Phoenix Building, Quezon Avenue,
Quezon City.