Ad hominem
Ad hominem refers to a logical fallacy where individuals attack their opponents' character instead of addressing the arguments presented. The term, derived from the Latin phrase meaning "to the man," highlights the flawed reasoning behind such attacks, which aim to discredit a viewpoint based on the perceived flaws or affiliations of the person asserting it. For instance, dismissing a doctor's advice on smoking cessation solely because the doctor smokes himself exemplifies this fallacy. There are three primary types of ad hominem arguments: abusive, which involves direct personal insults; circumstantial, which suggests an argument is made only for self-interest; and tu quoque, which counters a claim by pointing out hypocrisy in the speaker. These tactics divert attention from the actual issues and are considered poor forms of argumentation. Understanding ad hominem can enhance critical thinking skills, allowing individuals to recognize when discussions shift away from valid reasoning to personal attacks.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Ad hominem
An ad hominem is a logical fallacy in which arguers attack the characters of their intellectual opponents rather than the opponents' actual arguments. Logical fallacies are argumentative errors that violate basic logic, usually by lacking evidence or being irrelevant. Ad hominem arguments, named for the Latin phrase for "to the man," attempt to discredit a point of view by asserting that the person holding the view is unfit to make such a claim. This type of argument is considered fallacious because it seeks to refute a claim without actually addressing it.
An example of an ad hominem argument is a patient rejecting a doctor's advice to quit smoking because the doctor himself smokes. The doctor may have provided sound arguments for quitting smoking, but the patient dismisses the advice as invalid because the doctor is not following the advice himself. Ad hominem arguments are usually considered to employ faulty reasoning and are therefore poor responses to opposing views.
Background
The ad hominem is one of many types of logical fallacies that people use in argumentation. Logical argumentation involves using valid reasoning to arrive at sound conclusions. Logicians identify two major types of reasoning: deductive and inductive. Deductive reasoning uses chains of logic called syllogisms to contend that if certain premises are true, certain conclusions must also be true. Syllogisms infer conclusions based on the truth of their premises.
An example of a syllogism is as follows: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. The first two statements are premises. They are generally assumed to be true and do not need to be proven. The final statement is the syllogism's conclusion, the inference made based on the premises. Since reasonable people agree that men are mortal and that the Greek philosopher Socrates is indeed a man, it follows that Socrates must be mortal.
Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning in that it uses the truth of specific observations to make general statements about similar situations. Inductive reasoning fosters the creation of hypotheses that can be tested to reveal the truth more fully. For example, inductive reasoning is used here: The first coin drawn from a bag is a penny. The second and third coins are also pennies. Therefore, all the coins in the bag are pennies. This conclusion may later be proven true or false, but the inductive reasoning still helped the arguer arrive at the reality.
Logical fallacies do not follow these basic conventions of logic. Fallacies use illegitimate reasoning or make points that are irrelevant to the argument being considered. The ad hominem is only one of many logical fallacies that people have constructed over time. The argument from ignorance fallacy contends that a conclusion must be true because it cannot be proven false (or that a conclusion is false because it cannot be proven true). This is faulty reasoning, since the reason a certain point has not yet been proven true or false could simply be that no one has yet discovered the relevant evidence.
Another fallacy is the bandwagon fallacy, or the appeal to popularity. This argument holds that a certain belief must be true because many people support it. Meanwhile, the straw man fallacy unfairly simplifies an opposing viewpoint so it can be easily attacked as reprehensible or absurd. A straw man fallacy might consist of someone claiming that any politician who opposes increased government welfare spending despises the poor.
Overview
Ad hominem arguments are among these types of fallacies. The fallacy attacks people making arguments rather than attacking the arguments themselves. People who employ this fallacy in argumentation try to persuade their audience to disbelieve the claims of their opponents based on some real or exaggerated character flaw in the opponent. For instance, a member of a certain political party uses the ad hominem fallacy when saying that certain people are not to be believed because they are all members of an opposing political party. This argument claims nothing about the opponents' stated views; it baselessly assumes the views will be unreasonable due to the people's political affiliations.
Contemporary philosophy recognizes three main types of ad hominem arguments. One is an abusive ad hominem, which inserts personal attacks, name-calling, and other insults into an argument. As with other types of ad hominem arguments, this tactic is meant only to influence an audience to subscribe to one's own point of view. Someone making an abusive ad hominem argument might claim that a certain teacher is repugnant and unprincipled, and therefore, no student should enroll in his class. This argument attacks the teacher's character while saying nothing about the content of the class.
The second type of ad hominem is known as circumstantial. This reasoning asserts that someone is arguing a point purely out of self-interest rather than because of valid evidence. Circumstantial ad hominem arguments should be rejected because a point can be true whether it serves the interest of the arguer or not. An example of this is someone asserting that a businesswoman supports expanding her business simply because she personally would earn more money through the expansion. While the businesswoman may indeed earn a higher salary by expanding, the ad hominem has not provided valid reasons for not expanding.
The third kind of ad hominem is known as tu quoque, a Latin phrase meaning "you, also." This fallacious argument dismisses a point based on the claim that the person who has made the point does not actually subscribe to it. An example of this is outright disregarding the smoking doctor who advises patients not to smoke, or a neighbor's advice on lawn care even though the neighbor's own lawn is overgrown. The tu quoque assumes such advice is unfounded because the people giving it do not follow it themselves. However, the personal decisions of the advice givers have no bearing on the wisdom of the advice.
A variation of the ad hominem that personally attacks people is called the token endorsement fallacy, similar to the argument from authority. This fallacy asserts that an argument must be true because the person who made it is an authority figure by virtue of being a member of a certain group. For instance, propagators of such arguments might claim that any historical view held by a history professor must be valid, since a history professor would know more about history than anyone else would. This is not necessarily true.
Bibliography
"Ad Hominem." Texas State University, www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html. Accessed 3 Nov. 2017.
Bradford, Alina. "Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning." Live Science, 24 July 2017, www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html. Accessed 3 Nov. 2017.
Geher, Glenn. "Avoid the Ad Hominem Attack." Psychology Today, 10 Mar. 2017, www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201703/avoid-the-ad-hominem-attack. Accessed 3 Nov. 2017.
Hansen, Hans. "Fallacies." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 29 May 2015, plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2017.
Raley, Yvonne. "Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem." Scientific American, 1 June 2008, www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2017.
Van Vleet, Jacob E. Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide. UP of America, 2012, pp. 15–17.
Waicukauski, Ronald J., et al. The Winning Argument. American Bar Association, 2001, pp. 59–60.
Weber, Ryan, and Allen Brizee. "Logical Fallacies." Purdue Online Writing Lab, owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2017.
Williamson, Owen M. "Master List of Logical Fallacies." University of Texas at El Paso, utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm. Accessed 3 Nov. 2017.