The argument against the person(or ad hominemfallacy) involves attacking the
person who advances an argument (or asserts a statement) as opposed to provid-ing a rational critique of the argument (or statement) itself. ( Ad hominemis a
Latin phrase meaning “against the man.”) In its most blatant form, the abusive
ad hominem,this fallacy involves a direct personal attack, for example, an insult
or allegation that the arguer has a moral fl aw.
For example
:
5. Jones argues for vegetarianism. He says it is wrong to kill animals unless
you really need them for food, and that, as a matter of fact, nearly everyone
can get enough food without eating meat. But Jones is just a nerdy
intellectual. So, we can safely conclude that vegetarianism remains what it
has always been—nonsense.
Here, Jones’s argument is not given a rational critique; rather, Jones himself is
criticized. And even if Jones is a “nerdy intellectual,” this does not show that
Jones’s argument is fl awed, nor does it show that vegetarianism is nonsense. The
personal attack on Jones is simply irrelevant to the soundness of Jones’s argu-ment and irrelevant to the issue of vegetarianism.
Ad hominemarguments need not employ outright verbal abuse. In more
subtle forms, they involve the attempt to discredit an opponent by suggesting
that the opponent’s judgment is distorted by some factor in his or her circum-stances— even though the soundness of the opponent’s argument (or truth of the oppo-nent’s view) is independent of the factor cited.This form of ad hominemargument is
sometimes called the circumstantial ad hominembecause it involves an attempt to
discredit an argument (or view) by calling attention to the circumstances or
situation of those who advance it. For example:
6. Ms. Fitch argues in favor of equal pay for equal work. She says it doesn’t
make sense to pay a person more for doing the same job just because he
is male or Caucasian. But since Ms. Fitch is a woman, it’s to her personal
advantage to favor equal pay for equal work. After all, she would get an
immediate raise if her boss accepted her argument! Therefore, her
argument is worthless.
Here, an attempt is made to discredit the argument by showing that the arguer
has something to gain if her conclusion is accepted. Of course, the activity of
arguing can be, in a given case, simply a way of getting something the arguer
wants. But this fact, by itself, does not prove that the arguer’s reasoning is
fl awed. What is needed is a rational critique of the premises or inferences in
question.
Another form of the argument against the person involves an attempt to
suggest that the opponent is hypocritical—that is, that his views or arguments
confl ict with his own practice or with what he has said previously. This form
of ad hominemargument is sometimes called the tu quoque(pronounced “too
kwo-kway”), meaning “you too.” For instance, suppose a 12-year-old argues as
follows:
7. Dad tells me I shouldn’t lie. He says lying is wrong because it makes people
stop trusting one another. But I’ve heard my Dad lie. Sometimes he calls in
“sick” to work when he isn’t really sick. So, lying isn’t actually wrong—Dad
just doesn’t like it when I lie.
The tu quoquefallacy may succeed in embarrassing or discrediting the opponent,
but the logical error should be clear upon refl ection. For example, with regard to
argument (7), that some people (including one’s parents) lie in no way shows
that lying is morally permissible. In general, the fact that some people violate a
given moral rule does not show that the rule is incorrect. So, the premise of (7),
that “Dad lies,” is irrelevant to the conclusion.
Before we leave ad hominemarguments, a few words of caution are in order.
First, it is fairly rare for arguers in real life to state their ad hominemarguments as
explicitly as the ones discussed here. It is especially rare for them to restate the
opponent’s arguments. It is also rare to conclude explicitly that the opponent’s
position is false. What is far more common is for the person offering the ad homi-
nemargument to launch into a personal attack in an attempt to distractthe lis-
tener or reader from the original argument. If you can be worked up into viewing
the arguer with contempt as inconsistent or self-serving, then you will be much
less likely to pay attention to what she says. Here’s an example:
8. The mayor said the biggest problem for the city administration has been
fi ghting people who have protested such things as industrial development.
“We’ve had people fi ght highways, the school corporation, and county
zoning,” he said. “I didn’t notice any of these people coming up here on
horses and donkeys. They all drove cars up here, spewing hydrocarbons
all over the place.”
Second, there are two kinds of cases where attacks on a person are perfectly
legitimate. During the run-up to an election, we are bombarded with many
attack ads that criticize the candidates for various failings. Some of these adver-
tisements are no doubt inappropriate, but the mere fact that they criticize the
candidates does not make them guilty of the ad hominemfallacy. That is because
what is at issue is whether this person would make a good president (governor,
senator, dog catcher, etc.). If it is true that this person lied or stole or was wildly
promiscuous, that is good reason to think that he or she is not the right person
for the offi ce. Defects in the person (as premises) are not irrelevant to the con-
clusion (that the person should not be elected). With typical ad hominemargu-
ments, however, defects in the person (e.g., “My critics also damage the
environment”) areirrelevant to the conclusion (e.g., “My damaging the envi-
ronment is not wrong”) .
A second kind of case where personal criticisms are appropriate concerns
arguments by authority. As we shall see in Chapter 10, it is common to argue by
way of an appeal to authority. For example, “The surgeon-general has said that
babies should receive the MMR vaccine. So, babies should receive the MMR
vaccine.” Such arguments are often cogent. But notice that the authority’s say-
so is offered as a premise. If it can be shown that the authority is unreliable,
corrupt, or out to feather his or her own nest (e.g., suppose that the surgeon-
general owns a large number of shares in the company that manufactures the
vaccine), then this appeal to authority can be undermined. To do so is not to
commit the ad hominemfallacy. Notice, again, that in this case, the attack on the
person is not irrelevant to the conclusion because the original argument made
use of an implicit premise that the authority was reliable.
