Logic for Beginners: Ad Hominem

Quote: adjective 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Quote: Introduction to Ad Hominem Fallacies One of the most common non-rational appeals is an argumentum ad hominem--or, as the Latin phrase suggests, an "argument against the person" (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting). Our decisions should be based on a rational evaluation of the arguments with which we are presented, not on an emotional reaction to the person or persons making that argument. But because we often react more strongly to personalities than to the sometimes abstract and complex arguments they are making, ad hominem appeals are often very effective with someone who is not thinking critically. Consider a few examples: A political candidate is gaining support by proposing a tax change. So her opponent argues that the candidate herself would be one of the chief beneficiaries of that tax change. Your doctor tells you to lose some weight. But why should you listen to a doctor who is himself overweight? A friend has recommended a new investment opportunity, but your significant other rejects the recommendation with the remark, "How could you possibly value the advice of that idiot?" In each of these cases, there is an argument (concerning taxes, health, or investments); and in each, the argument is given less importance than something about the person making that argument. And that's what is wrong with ad hominem appeals. After all, if the tax proposal is an improvement, if the medical diagnosis is sound, if the investment opportunity is worthwhile--then what difference does it make who is presenting the argument--or even why? Ad hominem fallacies take a number of different forms, though all share the fact that they attempt to re-focus attention, away from the argument made and onto the person making it. And remember--it doesn't really matter whether the terms of the attack are true or false. What matters is whether the argument is acceptable, not the person arguing it. After all, even if Adolf Hitler says so, 2 + 2 still equals 4. Among the most frequent ad hominem appeals are attacks on: personality, traits, or identity: "Are you going to agree with what that racist pig is saying?" "Of course she's in favor of affirmative action. What do you expect from a black woman?" affiliation, profession, or situation: "What's the point of asking students whether they support raising tuition? They're always against any increase." "Oh yeah, prison reform sounds great--until you realize that the man proposing it is himself an ex-con." inconsistent actions, statements, or beliefs: "How can you follow a doctor's advice if she doesn't follow it herself?" "Sure, he says that today, but yesterday he said just the opposite." source or association for ideas or support: "Don't vote for that new initiative--it was written by the insurance lobby!" "You can't possibly accept the findings of that study on smoking--it was paid for by the tobacco industry." The point is that each argument must be evaluated in its own right. Information or suspicions about vested interests, hidden agendas, predilections, or prejudices should, at most, make you more vigilant in your scrutiny of that argument--but they should not be allowed to influence its evaluation. Only in the case of opinions, expert and otherwise, where you must rely not on the argument or evidence being presented but on the judgment of someone else, may personal or background information be used to evaluate the ideas expressed. If, for example, a used car vendor tries to prove to you that the car in question is being offered at lower than the average or "blue book" price, you must ignore the fact that the vendor will profit from the sale, and evaluate the proof. If, on the other hand, that used car vendor says, "Trust me, this is a good deal," without further proofs or arguments, you are entitled to take into account the profit motive, the shady reputation of the profession, and anything else you deem to be relevant as a condition of "trust."

Quote: Argumentum ad Hominem Translation: "Argument against the man" (Latin) The Fallacy of Personal Attack Exposition: A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate. Exposure: Ad Hominem is the most familiar of informal fallacies, and—with the possible exception of Undistributed Middle—the most familiar logical fallacy of them all. It is also one of the most used and abused of fallacies, and both justified and unjustified accusations of Ad Hominem abound in any debate. The phrase "ad hominem argument" is sometimes used to refer to a very different type of argument, namely, one that uses premisses accepted by the opposition to argue for a position. In other words, if you are trying to convince someone of something, using premisses that the person accepts—whether or not you believe them yourself. This is not necessarily a fallacious argument, and is often rhetorically effective. For instance, ad hominem is one of the most frequently misidentified fallacies, probably because it is one of the best known ones. Many people seem to think that any personal criticism, attack, or insult counts as an ad hominem fallacy. Moreover, in some contexts the phrase "ad hominem" may refer to an ethical lapse, rather than a logical mistake, as it may be a violation of debate etiquette to engage in personalities. So, in addition to ignorance, there is also the possibility of #####ocation on the meaning of "ad hominem". For instance, the charge of "ad hominem" is often raised during American political campaigns, but is seldom logically warranted. We vote for, elect, and are governed by politicians, not platforms; in fact, political platforms are primarily symbolic and seldom enacted. So, personal criticisms are logically relevant to deciding who to vote for. Of course, such criticisms may be logically relevant but factually mistaken, or wrong in some other non-logical way.