Untitled

There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponents agreement with ones undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponents character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate Xs argument is false. . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.

In todays epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as The Argument from Intimidation.

The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.

The Argument from Intimidation,
The Virtue of Selfishness, 139

The Argument from Intimidation dominates todays discussions in two forms. In public speeches and print, it flourishes in the form of long, involved, elaborate structures of unintelligible verbiage, which convey nothing clearly except a moral threat. (Only the primitive-minded can fail to realize that clarity is oversimplification.) But in private, day-by-day experience, it comes up wordlessly, between the lines, in the form of inarticulate sounds conveying unstated implications. It relies, not on what is said, but on how it is saidnot on content, but on tone of voice.

The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity. Surely you are not an advocate of capitalism, are you? And if this does not intimidate the prospective victimwho answers, properly: I am,the ensuing dialogue goes something like this: Oh, you couldnt be! Not really! Really. But everybody knows that capitalism is outdated! I dont. Oh, come now! Since I dont know it, will you please tell me the reasons for thinking that capitalism is outdated? Oh, dont be ridiculous! Will you tell me the reasons? Well, really, if you dont know, I couldnt possibly tell you!

All this is accompanied by raised eyebrows, wide-eyed stares, shrugs, grunts, snickers and the entire arsenal of nonverbal signals communicating ominous innuendoes and emotional vibrations of a single kind: disapproval.

If those vibrations fail, if such debaters are challenged, one finds that they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, no ground to stand onthat their noisy aggressiveness serves to hide a vacuumthat the Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.

The Argument from Intimidation,
The Virtue of Selfishness, 140

Let me emphasize that the Argument from Intimidation does not consist of introducing moral judgment into intellectual issues, but of substituting moral judgment for intellectual argument. Moral evaluations are implicit in most intellectual issues; it is not merely permissible, but mandatory to pass moral judgment when and where appropriate; to suppress such judgment is an act of moral cowardice. But a moral judgment must always follow , not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based.

The Argument from Intimidation,
The Virtue of Selfishness, 143

How does one resist that Argument? There is only one weapon against it: moral certainty.

When one enters any intellectual battle, big or small, public or private, one cannot seek, desire or expect the enemys sanction. Truth or falsehood must be ones sole concern and sole criterion of judgmentnot anyones approval or disapproval; and, above all, not the approval of those whose standards are the opposite of ones own.

The Argument from Intimidation,
The Virtue of Selfishness, 143

The most illustrious example of the proper answer to the Argument from Intimidation was given in American history by the man who, rejecting the enemys moral standards and with full certainty of his own rectitude, said:

If this be treason, make the most of it.

The Argument from Intimidation,
The Virtue of Selfishness, 144

Acknowledgments

Excerpts from The Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff. Copyright 1982 by Leonard Peikoff. Reprinted with permission of Stein and Day Publishers. Excerpts from The Romantic Manifesto, by Ayn Rand. Copyright 1971, by The Objectivist. Reprinted with permission of Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. Excerpts from Atlas Shrugged, copyright 1957 by Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, copyright 1943 by Ayn Rand, and For the New Intellectual, copyright 1961 by Ayn Rand. Reprinted by permission of the Estate of Ayn Rand. Excerpts from Philosophy: Who Needs It, by Ayn Rand. Copyright 1982 by Leonard Peikoff, Executor, Estate of Ayn Rand. Reprinted by permission of the Estate of Ayn Rand. Excerpts from The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series. Copyright 1976 by Leonard Peikoff. Reprinted by permission. Excerpts from Alvin Tofflers interview with Ayn Rand, which first appeared in Playboy magazine. Copyright 1964. Reprinted by permission of Alvin Toffler. All rights reserved including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form. Used by arrangement with Plume, a member of Penguin Group (USA), Inc.