AD
HOMINEM
Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy where instead of addressing the argument or viewpoint given by someone, the person making the argument is attacked.
In other words, the opponent’s supposed failings are aimed and attacked (that are irrelevant to the issue at hand), instead of focusing on the argument’s validity of the supported viewpoint of the opponent.
This attack can also be towards members in an institution or group. The opponent’s character or traits are attacked for the purpose of undermining and discrediting the argument they are making. The attacks can also be aimed towards a person’s background, actions in the past, morals, physical appearance, intelligence, or their credentials. The logical fallacy has a tendency to appeal to the emotions and prejudices of people, rather than the intellect and logical reasoning of the opposition’s argument.
Using
AD
Hominem
Examples
After Suzy presents a convincing case for an equitable taxation system, Samuel questions the audience whether they should believe any statements from a woman who isn’t married, was once arrested, and has a strange smell.
We cannot approve of this recycling idea. It was thought of by a bunch of hippie communist weirdos.
I was assigned a personal trainer at the Rec, and he gave me a new workout program. But I don’t have any confidence in his expertise, since he has obvious trouble controlling his own appetite.
Carl: “I think that climate change is the most important issue of our time and everyone should acknowledge that.” James: “You didn’t even go to college so obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.”
In this situation, James’ response is offensive and irrelevant to Carl’s argument. Highlighted the fact that Carl did not attend college is unrelated to the logic and reasoning behind his argument. Instead of addressing the argument made by Carl about the importance of climate change, James dismisses Carl’s argument with an insulting statement. This is known as abusive Ad Hominem.
Four
Catagories
AD Hominem
ABUSE
An attach that is abusive towards the person making the argument, instead of addressing the argument itself.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL
The assumption that a person’s argument is motivated by the personal circumstances of that person and as a result, their argument is invalid.
TU QUOQUE
The claim that a person’s argument is invalid as their conclusions are not consistent with their actions in the past.
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION
Discrediting the source of the argument (such as a person) as a result of their association with something that is negative.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL
AD HOMINEM
The Circumstantial Ad Hominem form (also known as appeal to motive) is caused by a person stating that the argument of the opponent must be invalid by mentioning the opponent’s personal circumstances. In this manner, the entirely of the opponent’s argument is discredited and deemed untrue. This is logically fallacious because this way of logic implies that all arguments are false if there is a connection between the circumstances of a person and their conclusions. In reality, this does not invalidate or disprove the logic of an argument or claim.
The Circumstantial Ad Hominem carries the following logical form:
Susan
“You are only saying this because you are a girl yourself and so your opinion does not matter.”
James
“Because our student council is made up of mostly boys, it would be a good idea to involve more girls to make the council more balanced.”
The Abusive Ad Hominem is generally the most frequently occurring form. This occurs when an attack is abusive towards a person by means of criticising their personal characteristics (morals, background, appearance, and hobbies). The attacker seeks to discredit the argument of the opposition by offending the person making that argument.
The Abusive Ad Hominem carries the following logical form:
ABUSIVE
AD HOMINEM
Susan
“What could you possibly even know about all of this, you are an idiot who spends most of his day watching Netflix.”
James
“There are various other planets similar to Earth out there that I believe there could be other forms of life on some of them.”
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION
AD HOMINEM
Lastly, the Guilt by Association is a form of Ad Hominem fallacy, where a person is discredited as a result of their alleged connection with something that is negative. The characteristics of something that is negative such as connections to a bad person or evil ideas are assumed to be the same as the characteristics associated with the opposition. Therefore, the opposition is also viewed as ‘guilty’.
The Guilt by Association Ad Hominem carries the following logical form:
Susan
“Are you aware that Hitler was also a vegetarian? You must be just like him.”
James
“I am a vegetarian because the act of vegetarianism is proven to have countless health benefits when compared to diets containing meat.”
The Tu Quoque Ad Hominem (also known as appeal to hypocrisy) is fundamentally based upon the conclusion in which a person’s argument must be untrue and invalid because of the inconsistency between their actions in the past and the claims they are making. Instead of addressing the evidence and logical reasoning that the opponent is using, the arguer replies by stating that the opponent has acted in the similar manner themselves. This is logically fallacious because although this highlights the opponent’s hypocritical ways, it does not actually address that true substance of the opponent’s argument and logical reasoning.
The Tu Quoque Ad Hominem carries the following logical form:
TU QUOQUE
AD HOMINEM
Susan
“You are a smoker yourself, so you can’t possibly believe that.”
“You really should not be talking about reducing carbon footprints, you drive an SUV after all!”
James
“It is important to quit smoking, it has been proven time and time again how dangerous it is.”
“I believe that doing our best to reduce our carbon footprints would have a positive effect on our climate.”