Genetic fallacy
The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a claim is ignored in favor of attacking or championing its source. The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the  premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are not conclusive in determining its merits. In "The Oxford Companion to Philosophy" (1995) it is asserted that the term originated in Morris Raphael Cohen and Ernest Nagel's book "Logic and Scientific Method" (1934). However, in a book review published in "The Nation" in 1926, Mortimer J. Adler complained that "The Story of Philosophy" by Will Durant was guilty throughout  of "the fallacy of genetic interpretation." Adler characterized the genetic fallacy generally as "the substitution of psychology for logic." Examples. From "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" by T. Edward Damer, Third Edition p. 36: There are numerous motives explaining why people choose to wear wedding rings, but it would be a fallacy to presume those who continue the tradition are promoting sexism. Another example would be from How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic (2006) by Madsen Pirie, p.82: As the author points out, private developers may well have legitimate and knowledgeable opinions on such a matter. Genetic