“Has Justice Been Served: The Ad Hominem Fallacy in Action”
Paper Assignment – Philosophy 1370 Spring 2021 – First Eight Weeks – Online !
Dr. Stewart & Ms. Thibodeaux
The Center for Philosophical Studies at Lamar University
– – – – – – (four pages)
Before we get to the technicalities of this term’s paper assignment, some review
of a handful of items is in order. Go back and review my first (1 of 2) set of Notes on
Chapters 1 and 2 from my Elements of Knowledge, paying special attention to the subjects
of deduction and induction. In the paper assignment, following, you will see that we’re
dealing with a fictional criminal murder trial, one in which we are acting as defense
counsel. Here’s the point: in criminal procedure, for the prosecution to win, or “prevail,”
then in theory at least the prosecution must aim at deductive certainty. No doubts, no
“if’s”; no probabilities. This is realized by having all twelve jurors vote “guilty.” No
exceptions. 100%. If even one juror votes “not guilty” and will not change this vote, the
prosecution will fail to prevail. And, by the way, “innocent” means you didn’t do it, but
“not guilty”means the prosecution cannot prove that you did. And “proof,” in this
instance, means 100% certainty.
And you can easily see why, especially in murder trials, we must have, for a guilty
verdict, 100% certainty securely in place. Depending on which state you live in, the
resulting verdict may deal in capital punishment or life imprisonment. Grim finalities.
But now, the defense counsel (in this case, us), will be perfectly happy in dealing
with inductive probability. In fact, the function of any defense counsel, in a criminal
proceeding, is to introduce doubt into the juror’s minds. If such doubt cannot be erased
by the prosecution, the defense will prevail. So here is the place to contrast criminal
procedure with “civil” procedure (lawsuits), thus: criminal procedure, for a guilty verdict,
must deal in certainty. But to get a guilty verdict in a civil case, only a majority of the jury
+ one is needed.
1
(2/4)
Now, take another look at the first set (1of 2) of my Notes over Chapters 3 and
4 from Elements of Knowledge, paying special attention to the section on Peirce’s “beans”
illustrations of Deduction, Induction, and Abduction. Especially when it is pointed out
that, in these illustrations, the content of each is exactly the same as the other two. The
difference between them lies in the form or design or structure of each. What’s the
point? Well, in criminal trials there is an aspect known as “discovery,” wherein, in theory
at least, we are secure in thinking that prosecution and defense alike work from exactly
the same evidence, or content. It is by the differences in their reasoning processes,
deduction vs. induction, the forms by with which they shape or mold the evidence at
hand, that they arrive at such different conclusions. One side, certainty; the other side,
something less strict. Abduction, or guesswork, is certainly in play for both sides,
particularly as they begin to form up their cases.
Lastly, now, before engaging the details of your paper, “Has Justice Been Served,”
consider my second set (2 of 2) Notes over Chapters 3 & 4 from Elements of Knowledge.
There you see a discussion of the so-called ad hominem fallacy: arguments against the
person, regardless of the “message” the person carries or delivers. This is the central
subject of your paper. For as you will see, prosecution and defense alike share the same
damning evidence against our client, which leaves us, it seems as the defense counsel, but
one option to attempt for a “not guity” verdict, that being to invoke a vicious ad hominem
attack in an attempt to fatally discredit the character of the eyewitness put forward by the
prosecution, who swears under oath that she saw our client commit the murder in
question.
* * * * *
2
Writing Assignment in Critical Thinking
Has Justice Been Served?
(3/4)
Philosophy 1370 – Spring Semester 2021- First Eight Weeks – Dr. Stewart – Online !
Maximum sixty-five (65) points for the semester.
– – – – –
In, at most, five pages of clearly written prose text (one side per sheet, only;
Garamond 12-pt. type, double spaced, preferred), please address the critical issues in the
following f ic tio n a l passage, and do so through the questions supplied following the passage
itself. The material on th is page, then, is the “subject” portion of the assignment. More
formatting, Core Rubric and grading information on following page. In this assignment, you
are asked, in the context of a capital murder trial to think like the Ju d g e , then like an
individual Ju ro r, and finally as a member of the Ju ry , a member of the general P u b lic .
– – – – –
Text: Here we are confronted with a capital murder trial, one in which prospects for
the Defendant do not look very promising. The Defendant, our client, is accused of
shooting the deceased in the Mall parking lot one sunny afternoon, at very close range and in
the head, with a .357 Magnum revolver. Most if not all the factual evidence seems clearly
against our client, including the testimony of an alleged eye-witness to the murder, a Ms.
Smith, by name. Among other maneuvers to counter such evidence overall, we intend to
discredit Ms. Smith’s character by asking her, under oath, if it is or is not true that she is a
prostitute and a dealer in illegal drugs. Our aim here is to play upon the egotistical
conscience of a certain juror, a Mr. Jones, by name, hoping he will vote not guilty in this case
because he fundamentally wishes to avoid the embarrassment of having to admit to his wife,
his children, his business associates and his religious colleagues that he in practical effect
voted, in this case, to execute our client based on the testimony of a morally corrupt and
debased witness.
Think here as would a Ju d g e , in such an instance. Questions (to be answered in
continuous prose text): What kinds of seemingly damning factual evidence could the
Prosecutor bring against our client? What are the advantages and the disadvantages of the
Prosecution bringing forward the eye- witness, Ms. Smith? What makes bringing forward
eye-witness testimony a risky maneuver?
(4/4)
If the Prosecution is to prevail, is there any particular kind of reasoning that the
Prosecution must use to organize and present all the damning factual evidence mentioned
above? Can the evidence in play be cast in another kind of reasoning that the Defense could
use, and in such a way as to dismiss or jeopardize the value of all or part(s) of this evidence?
When Ms. Smith’s character is attacked, which fallacy of relevance is involved? What should
be the reaction of the Prosecution?
Formatting Information: typescript required, double-space all. Garamond 12-pt. typescript
preferred. Staple together at upper left. Also at upper left, first page:
Title of Essay – Your name plus student i.d. number
Dr. Stewart – Philosophy 1370 & Section Number – Spring 2021 – First Eight Weeks
The Center for Philosophical Studies at Lamar University – Date of Submission
Core Rubric Information:
On the last page of your essay, at the left margin and in bold type, enter
Criteria (personal and social responsibility).
Then, in no more space than your last page, discuss the personal and social responsibility issues in this trial as if you were a Ju ro r in this trial. . Thus, given what you, personally, as a juror, know about the evidence involved, would you individually feel compelled to vote for conviction or acquittal? And at the larger level of social responsibility, as a member of the Ju ry /P u b lic , and, again, using the information made available in this trial, should society at large approve of a conviction, leading certainly to capital punishment in this case, or allow an acquittal, certainly saving the accused’s life?
Grading: Failure to submit this assignment will result in a loss of 65 points from your semester grade total. A simply adequate essay will not result in any change in your semester grade total, but papers exceeding the merely adequate m ay possibly result in having up to 65 points added to your semester grade total (i.e., half a letter grade !).
Due no later than 04 March 2021; 6:00 pm CST.. Blackboard submission details from Ms. Thibodeaux will follow. Grades for this assignment will be available with the semester’s totals, after the Final Exam.
– c’est tout, fur heute – !!
