Argument by Motivation 2

In motivation and Voter ID (April 4th) we discussed the left's opposition to voter ID laws on the grounds that the advocates' presumed  motivation was to prevent a certain class of people from voting.  I have seen people who are well aware of the invalidity of this type of ad hominem fallacy find it so appealing that they cannot resist it. It is reasonable to consider motivation in analyzing an advocate's reason's for opposing a position, that is, for the purpose  of judging the advocate.  However, it is not, in fact a valid argument against the position itself.  Consider about any martyrdom case.  The position is to eliminate the individual and thereby shut down the person's belief, program, cause ... .   But it frequently doesn't work for example the French Revolution, Nelson Mandela, or for that matter, Jesus Christ himself.  Just because X is the motive of your action does not mean that X will be a consequence of that action.

The right likes this kind of argument too.
In this situation in fact many on the right believe that the left is opposed to voter ID laws because the left is motivated by a desire to get the votes of millions of people who are in the country illegally and do not have the right to vote.  Just as the right has some who would like to suppress voting, there are some on the left who would like to stretch the access to voting to include some who would not have traditionally qualified.  If you listen to TV discussions on this you will sometimes hear "all eligible people" should be allowed to vote and sometimes they will simply say "all people".

This is at least part of the reason for the fact that we do not have an immigration bill.  Each side assumes the worst possible motives on the part of the opposition -  i. e. they seek to demonize them.

Here the fallacy allows you to oppose the law without having to deal with what the law says.  Just oppose the presumed motives of the opponent.  As usual with ad hominem arguments it involves much less thinking.

With all  of the discussion on the other point I still did not see someone on the left say that they agreed with the statement:

If you are entitled to or have a right to something from the government you should be required to prove your eligibility for that entitlement or right.

Motivation and Voter ID 2

I find the use of an alleged “motivation of your opponent” as an argument against his case to be rather boring and persuasive only to those who desperately want to believe.  The idea is:  Don’t argue that the opponent's case is invalid, argue that the opponent’s motivation is nasty.  I suppose that it is a subcase of the abusive ad hominem argument: A fallacy which usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments.  In this case the opponent’s motivation is the particular aspect of the person that is attacked.   The merits of the case, one way or another, often get lost altogether.  Of course, if you don’t have a good case, then perhaps avoiding an argument based on merit is your best chance.  (Did I just slip into the motivation fallacy?)

The place this is currently getting a lot of play is in the Voter ID laws.  Those Rs are just trying to deny the right to vote of the old and poor who are expected to vote Democratic.  The D’s are just trying to fix it so all of those illegal aliens can vote for them.  Both arguments totally ignore the fundamental question:

A.   If a person claims to have a right or an entitlement to something, should they

1) have to demonstrate that they are eligible for that thing or

2) should the government grant these rights and benefits on the honor system.

B.   Since voting is essential to a democracy it gets special treatment.  There is a fundamental obligation by the government to ensure there is no impediment (other than eligibility) to the exercise of the right to vote.  In particular there can be no financial impediment – tax, charge, or cost (24th  amendment).  That is, if you require a picture ID, then you must provide a way for them to get one cost free.

I choose A1 and B.  A1 it seems to me is self evident.  B is a bit harder to implement, but not really that bad.

Don’t misunderstand me.  I am not saying either group does not have the alleged motivations.  I am not saying that motivations are not important.  They may explain why someone is taking a certain position.

But an argument based on the opponent’s motivation is not valid.  There are at least two good reasons:

1.  Even if their motives are bad the result could be good.

2.  Unless you are God, you don’t know their motives.