[D]enunciation of persons and opposition to policy are very apt to go together. But we know, when we think about the matter, that they ought to be sharply distinguished, and that political and social problems would offer much better prospect of solution if we did so. It is widely acknowledged, at least where democratic principles survive, that an opponent must be respected as a person, however deluded and mischievous his view, and however severe the measures we must take against him, provided we are sure that he holds to his way with honest intention.
(H. D. Lewis, "Morality and Religion," Philosophy 24 [January 1949]: 34-55, at 51)
Note from KBJ: Philosophers are taught to distinguish between (1) the person making an argument and (2) the argument itself. Good people can make bad arguments and bad people good arguments. Unfortunately, in political life (and increasingly often in philosophy), the distinction is not honored. I myself have been the victim of vicious personal attacks (including smears) by people who don't even know me, but who dislike my beliefs, values, or arguments. This says much more about them than it does about me. Indeed, it says nothing about me, except that I think for myself. There is a powerful herd instinct in academia, despite its pretension of being a place for freethinkers. Those who wander from the herd, especially on matters social and political, are treated as black sheep.
