I am surprised the reductio ad absurdum argument is not taken seriously in our contemporary public sphere.
Just to be clear, a functional definition of the reductio ad absurdum argument is “reduction to absurdity” (this is the literal Latin definition) or an appeal to extremes. This technique was employed by ancient Greek philosophers. One need only look as far as Aristotle’s Prior Analytics to see that it is a legitimate form of reasoning. Essentially, it is used to disprove a statement by breaking it down to the ridiculous or absurd conclusion.
An example of the reductio ad absurdum argument is: the earth cannot be flat if it were then people would fall off the edge.
Conservatives used the reductio ad absurdum argument in contemporary society when they were arguing against gay marriage. Those on the left were using a definition of marriage that defined the institution as an emotional union. Conservatives argued that if this were the standard, there would be no principled reason for denying polygamous marriages to those who were polyamorous because they, too, could claim that they were seeking an emotional union.
This is a perfectly legitimate mode of argument. This rhetorical strategy seeks to undermine faulty foundations by showing that when carried out to their logical ends, no reasonable person would hold those beliefs and therefore, the principle that makes up that foundation must be…
