Jump to content

Reductio ad absurdum: Difference between revisions

From The Austrian Economics Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought
Created page with "A '''''reductio ad absurdum''''' is used to disprove an argument by showing that its reasoning or consequences are absurd. An example would be the "Consume Nothing Day" video ..."
 
Repoint 1 dead mises.org link to the archived original (automated; see Austrian Economics Wiki:Link repointing)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
A '''''reductio ad absurdum''''' is used to disprove an argument by showing that its reasoning or consequences are absurd. An example would be the "Consume Nothing Day" video showing the logical conclusion of the principles behind "Buy Nothing Day."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xTOqIuAv6E|title=Consume Nothing Day|publisher=Bureaucrash}}</ref> [[Frédéric Bastiat]] was considered by [[Henry Hazlitt]] the master of ''reductio ad absurdum'', his supreme jest being the [[candlemakers' petition]].<ref>{{md|2024|Bastiat the Great|Hazlitt, Henry|30 January 2006}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html|title=A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting|author=Bastiat, Frédéric|date=1845}}</ref> Tibor Machan, in ''Putting Humans First'', asked, if animals have rights, do we not have a duty to prevent animals from killing or assaulting each other? This was intended as a ''reductio ad absurdum'' against animal rights.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership|author=Gordon, David|date=2006|volume=12|number=1|url=http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=298}}</ref> Sometimes the opposition will preempt one's intended ''reductio ad absurdum''.<ref>{{md|1543|Beggars Can Be Choosers|Murphy, Robert P.|23 June 2004}}</ref>
A '''''reductio ad absurdum''''' is used to disprove an argument by showing that its reasoning or consequences are absurd. An example would be the "Consume Nothing Day" video showing the logical conclusion of the principles behind "Buy Nothing Day."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xTOqIuAv6E|title=Consume Nothing Day|publisher=Bureaucrash}}</ref> [[Frédéric Bastiat]] was considered by [[Henry Hazlitt]] the master of ''reductio ad absurdum'', his supreme jest being the [[candlemakers' petition]].<ref>{{md|2024|Bastiat the Great|Hazlitt, Henry|30 January 2006}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html|title=A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting|author=Bastiat, Frédéric|date=1845}}</ref> Tibor Machan, in ''Putting Humans First'', asked, if animals have rights, do we not have a duty to prevent animals from killing or assaulting each other? This was intended as a ''reductio ad absurdum'' against animal rights.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership|author=Gordon, David|date=2006|volume=12|number=1|url=https://mises.freecapitalists.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=298}}</ref> Sometimes the opposition will preempt one's intended ''reductio ad absurdum''.<ref>{{md|1543|Beggars Can Be Choosers|Murphy, Robert P.|23 June 2004}}</ref>


==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}

Latest revision as of 04:09, 16 August 2026

A reductio ad absurdum is used to disprove an argument by showing that its reasoning or consequences are absurd. An example would be the "Consume Nothing Day" video showing the logical conclusion of the principles behind "Buy Nothing Day."[1] Frédéric Bastiat was considered by Henry Hazlitt the master of reductio ad absurdum, his supreme jest being the candlemakers' petition.[2][3] Tibor Machan, in Putting Humans First, asked, if animals have rights, do we not have a duty to prevent animals from killing or assaulting each other? This was intended as a reductio ad absurdum against animal rights.[4] Sometimes the opposition will preempt one's intended reductio ad absurdum.[5]

References