Reductio ad Hitlerum

The term reductio ad Hitlerum (sometimes rendered reductio ad Hitlerem)—whimsical Latin for "reduction to Hitler"—was originally coined by University of Chicago professor and ethicist Leo Strauss. The phrase comes from the better known logical argument reductio ad absurdum. It is a variety of association fallacy and may also be described as argumentum ad nazium, though some distinguish the latter as referring to Nazi actions or beliefs with reductio ad Hitlerum being reserved for arguments involving Hitler himself. The relatively frequent occurrence of such absurd lines of reasoning in Usenet discussions led to the formulation of Godwin's Law in 1990.

The reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy is of the form "Adolf Hitler (or the Nazi party) supported X; therefore X must be evil". This fallacy is often effective due to the near-instant condemnation of anything to do with Hitler or the Nazis.

It is important to understand that those policies advocated by Hitler and his party that are generally considered evil, are all condemned by themselves, not because Hitler supported them. In other words: genocide and Aryan white supremacism (for example) are not considered evil because Hitler advocated them, but rather Hitler is considered evil because he advocated them.

The fallacious nature of Reductio ad Hitlerum is best illustrated by identifying X as something that Adolf Hitler or his supporters did promote but which is not considered evil — for example, X = "building expressways", X = "painting watercolors", X = "owning dogs". It may also be refuted through counterexamples:

• Dwight Eisenhower, who despised Hitler's criminality, admired his Autobahnen and promoted the Interstate Highway System in the United States.
• Hitler's opponent Sir Winston Churchill also painted.
• Hitler, responsible for mass genocide, and Gandhi, renowned for his non-violent liberation of India, were both vegetarians.
• U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who asked Congress for a Declaration of War, and his successor Harry Truman, who continued to prosecute the war against Germany, also owned dogs.

The argument being fallacious, however, does not prove X, or its supporters, not being evil (assuming that would be another fallacy, namely affirming the consequent). Moreover, recall that the argument is fallacious in itself, no matter whether X is actually good or evil. So, "Hitler killed human beings, therefore killing is wrong", is nonetheless a fallacy, however truthful premise and conclusion may be, because there is no logical connection between the two of them. It would be akin to "I wear trousers, therefore tomorrow it will rain". This sentence is logically faulty, even if the speaker does wear trousers, and the next day does turn out rainy.

The phrase Reductio ad Hitlerum first appeared in Leo Strauss's writings in his 1950 book, Natural Right and History, Chapter II:

In following this movement towards its end we shall inevitably reach a point beyond which the scene is darkened by the shadow of Hitler. Unfortunately, it does not go without saying that in our examination we must avoid the fallacy that in the last decades has frequently been used as a substitute for the reductio ad absurdum: the reductio ad Hitlerum. A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Hitler.

This logical fallacy is also used frequently in the activity of Policy Debate as a way to attempt to briefly package philosophical objections to government types or frameworks for making decisions. A simplified example of such a fallacy might be "Hitler had a government; you propose using the government; therefore, you are comparable to Hitler." This is often satirized as "Hitler wore pants; you're wearing pants; so you must be Hitler."

Sundry criminals, religious and political cranks, and tyrants other than Hitler could be used for the same purposes. For example, a reductio ad Stalinum could assert that corporal punishment of wayward children is necessary because Josef Stalin enacted its abolition, or that atheism is a dangerous philosophy because Stalin was an atheist. Similarly, a reductio ad Cromwellium would equate enjoying chamber music with hating the Irish. Yet, it would make as much sense as saying that men with moustaches are evil because Hitler and Stalin had moustaches.

See also

• Association fallacy
• Ad hominem
• Godwin's Law
• Reductio ad absurdum

External links

• Logical Fallacy: The Hitler Card