Hitler analogies

Andrew Sullivan in this link complains about pro-gay marriage people being compared to Nazis. I agree with him that the argument he is replying to is unfortunate but I think he is purposely misstating the author’s point.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

It seems to me that Drew is making the point that the gay marriage issue is one that everyone will have to take a side on. It is a question at the foundation of our regime and civilization and taking no position is a position. Still, the argument is unfortunate, though not for the reason Sullivan states.

Here is the thing with Hitler analogies. They are quite useful in reasoning about things precisely because he represents a universally agreed upon evil. They are dangerous because they represent a universally agreed up evil.

In mathematical reasoning it is often the case that we want to take something to a logical extreme. “Suppose I start with the largest prime number…” Why do we do that? Well it allows us to find a test case. If it is not true at some extreme value then we don’t have to worry about it being true at some lesser value. If it some proposition is true at some extreme value then we can start working our way back to find out at what values it stops being true.

Hitler is a recognized end point on a continuum. The continuum of evil. If, say, we want to know if we are going to prohibit the speech of people with whom we disagree we can conveniently pose the question as would we let Hitler speak? If yes we are done. If no then we can start figuring out where we are willing to draw the line.

The problem is that using such arguments, so benign and useful in mathematics, has a drawback in politics. We are often said to be ‘implicitly’ comparing someone to Hitler. And of course we are. We are saying that someone shares with Hitler a quality of being morally objectionable in some way. Being morally objectionable is in itself not much of a criticism. But by using Hitler in the example brings in associations that take on a life of their own.

The problem is that language works in two ways. One is on the logical level and the other is on the level of associations. On the level of logic we are not doing anyone a dis-service by drawing an analogy between them and Hitler—there are lots of abstract qualities that Hitler had which a person could share and not be so bad. The problem is that language works also at the level of associations. Even if the logical point one is making is not so harsh, the association that is being built is one almost anyone does have a right to object to.

So, when someone complains about a Hitler analogy the proper response is not “how dare you compare me to Hitler?” Or “How dare you compare me to Lenin [or Marx, etc.]?” Logically there is almost no one or no position that is not on a continuum that ends with some very objectionable figure. And the person drawing the analogy is usually in a position to make some sort of pedantic but correct reply that they are not comparing you to Hitler but just taking some quality to a logical extreme to make a point. The real objection is that certain analogies are so toxic that whatever the merits of the logic of an argument in which they are employed, they should be avoided. It strikes me as a case of bad writing than of bad will.