Argument in Holocaust Denial: The Differences Between Historical Casuistry and Denial Casuistry

Abstract

This essay examines casuistry as it works in argumentative processes and effects. Instead of dismissing all casuistic practices as inherently evil, it is important to study casuistry's functioning for two reasons: casuistry is a necessary and inevitable feature of language and casuistry is effective. I argue that there are good and malign forms of casuistic reasoning and I distinguish between them by comparing and contrasting historical casuistry with the practice of Holocaust denial. In particular, I examine the libel suit brought by Holocaust denier David Irving against Penguin Publishers and Deborah Lipstadt.

Key words:

• casuistry
• argument
• rhetoric
• history
• Holocaust denial