A Freeper's Introduction to Rhetoric (Part 3, the Argument Ad Hominem)

The phrase ad hominem translates into "against the person." It names a fallacious attack in which the thrust is directed, not at a conclusion, but at the person who asserts or defends it. This fallacy has two major forms, because there are two major ways in which the attack can be personalized.

Participants in strenuous argument sometimes disparage the character of their opponents, deny their intelligence or reasonableness, question their integrity, and so on. But the character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what that person says, or to the correctness or incorrectness of that person's reasoning. To contend that proposals are bad, or assertions false, because they are proposed or asserted by "radicals" or "extremists" is a typical example of the fallacy ad hominem, abusive.

Abusive premisses are irrelevant; they may nevertheless persuade by the psychological process of transference. Where an attitude of disapproval toward a person can be evoked, the field of emotional disapproval may be extended so as to include disagreement with the assertions that person makes.

A bitter controversy among several contemporary American philosophers illustrates this fallacious attack. One of the disputants wrote:

The merits of the positions of the conflicting parties are not illuminated by argument of this character.

Ad hominem abuse has very many variations. The opponent may be abused for being of a certain persuasion, an "isolationist" or an "interventionist," a member of the "radical right" or of the "loony left," or the like. When an argument ad hominern, abusive, takes the form of attacking the source or genesis of the opposing position — not relevant to its truth, of course — it maybe called the "genetic fallacy." A conclusion or its proponent may sometimes be condemned simply because the view defended is also defended by persons widely believed to be of bad character. Socrates was convicted of impiety at his notorious trial partly because of his association with persons widely known to have been disloyal to Athens and rapacious in conduct. From his day to ours there have been countless cases of such "guilt by association" in which persons are unfairly accused, and sometimes convicted, because they have been associated with other persons in disrepute.

In legal proceedings it is sometimes appropriate to exhibit the unreliability of the person giving testimony, to "impeach the witness." If dishonesty in other matters can be shown and credibility thus undermined, such impeachment, in that context, may not be fallacious. But it is never enough simply to assert that the witness lied; a pattern of dishonesty or duplicity must be exhibited, or inconsistencies with past testimony revealed. And even in this special context, the attack on character cannot establish the falsehood of the testimony given; that inference would be fallacious.

In the circumstantial form of the ad hominem fallacy, it is the irrelevance of the connection between the belief held and the circumstances of those holding it that gives rise to the mistake. The circumstances of one who makes (or rejects) some claim have no bearing on the truth of that claim.

Thus it may be argued fallaciously that consistency obliges an opponent to accept (or reject) some conclusion merely because of that person's employment, or nationality, or political affiliation, or other circumstances. It may be unfairly suggested that a clergyman must accept a given proposition because its denial would be incompatible with the Scriptures. Or it may be claimed that political candidates must support a given policy because that policy is explicitly propounded in the platform of their party. Such argument is irrelevant to the truth of the proposition in question; it simply urges that some persons' circumstances require its acceptance. Hunters, accused of the needless slaughter of unoffending animals, sometimes reply by noting that their critics eat the flesh of harmless cattle. Such a reply is plainly ad hominem; the fact that the critic eats meat does not even begin to prove that it is right for the hunter to kill animals for amusement. The Latin term tu quoque (meaning "you're another" or, more loosely, "look who's talking") is sometimes used to name this variety of circumstantial ad hominem argument.

While the circumstances of the opponent may not be the issue in a serious argument, calling attention to them may be psychologically effective in winning assent, or in persuading others. But however persuasive it may prove, argument of this kind is essentially fallacious.

Circumstantial ad hominem arguments are sometimes used to suggest that the opponents' conclusion should be rejected because their judgment is warped, dictated by their special situation rather than by reasoning or evidence. But an argument that is favorable to some group deserves discussion on its merits; it is fallacious to attack it simply on the ground that it is presented by a member of that group and is therefore self-serving. The arguments in favor of a protective tariff (for example) may be bad, but they are not bad because they are presented by a manufacturer who benefits from such tariffs.

One argument of this kind, called "poisoning the well," is particularly perverse. The incident that gave rise to the name illustrates the argument forcefully. The British novelist and clergyman Charles Kingsley, attacking the famous Catholic intellectual John Henry Cardinal Newman, argued thus: Cardinal Newman's claims were not to be trusted because, as a Roman Catholic priest, (Kingsley alleged) Newman's first loyalty was not to the truth. Newman countered that this ad hominem attack made it impossible for him and indeed for all Catholics to advance their arguments, since anything that they might say to defend themselves would then be undermined by others' alleging that, after all, truth was not their first concern. Kingsley, said Cardinal Newman, had poisoned the well of discourse.

Between the abusive and the circumstantial varieties of argumentad hominem there is a clear connection: the circumstantial may be regarded as a special case of the abusive. When a circumstantial ad hominem argument explicitly or implicitly charges the opponents with inconsistency (among their beliefs, or between what they profess and what they practice), that is clearly one kind of abuse. When a circumstantial ad hominem argument charges the opponents with a lack of trustworthiness by virtue of group membership or conviction, that is an accusation of prejudice in defense of self-interest and is clearly also an abuse. Whether of one form or the other, ad hominem arguments are directed fallaciously at the person of the adversary.

That "Liberty" graphic is a tremedous piece. This is the first I've seen of it, but it should be placed on CD-ROM and circulated to every library and school in America.

The author is working with some people to do exactly that. Actually the words are the Epilogue of a book called "The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible" which is required reading in many high schools in places like Eastern Europe, but not, paradoxically, in this country. It has been translated into 30 languages and the project continues to translate it into more. You might want to look it up and get it. It is a primer in economics that utterly ridicules socialism, wrong-headed politicians and other govt stupidities, all done in a very comical, easy to read story.

While I agree with the point you both make concerning the danger and potential damage of a bad argument in defense of the right principle lost to the wrong person, the dilemma lies with the ability of people to learn from mistakes. The consequence of the engagement has the abilty to encourage one to learn from the process of debate to develop a logical argument. In my case, this is how I learned that my positions (leftist conjecture maintained in the naivete of post teen-dom) were wrong.

I understand and have a similar background. It is a practical matter and is not productive to be too harsh, which I have a tendency to do. But I deal with the results of this foolishness on a daily basis, so it kind of hits me in the middle.

I learned this the hard way and was forced to re-evaluate the contradictions in my belief system. Beliefs were quickly overcome by thought process through which I have been developing ever since.

It is the willingness to recognize those contradictions in oneself that is the whole issue. First one has to recognize the value of contradictions, the real issue of this thread. That often proves difficult to impossible, depending upon who one is dealing with.

I expect that some (not all) of those who bravely attempt to defend the right principles in a public forum should be commended for the effort on the one hand, and corrected where necessary on the other.

Yes, it is an education process. That is all one can do, really.

Bad defenders are indeed a liability. Good ones, nevertheless, are priceless! Consider these threads to be the vehicle for this process.

I've always thought so. There are many venues, many discussions. Like the book I mentioned. There are many people working in many ways to change things. But it also depends upon what you mean by 'right principles' since this means different things to different people. Which is why I said what I did. It is the importance of this particular thread. Knowing fallacies permits one to point out the contradiction. If the person won't recognize the fallacy, nothing more can be done. But at least you know you don't have to take that person seriously anymore, except as a danger.

To be a bit specific about using a bad argument to justify a good thing, consider those who justifiy the free enterprise system based on their religious beliefs.

Over the years I have come to recognize more and more the damage done because of the altruistic ethic of precisely this situation, which is the reason for my remarks. A perfect example was the Gov. of Alabama (I think) that wanted to raise taxes because, he said, JC said we had a duty to take care of the poor. I could dig around the web and find a dozen religious leaders in the last week or so that advocated what is basically socialism, on a religious basis. I remember once the Catholic Bishops in NY objecting to a decrease in welfare payments because it might lead to more abortions. That it had precisely the opposite effect never fazed them.

Free enterprise as it truly should be, doesn't exist in this country, precisely because of the aforementioned altruist ethic. So while it seems they are advocating a good thing, that same belief system undermines what they think they are advocating.

I consider free enterprise to be a very good thing; but it works for all religions that I know of, and is entirely justifiable on economic principles, regardless of one's religion (or the lack thereof).

Except when the religion precludes it. For example, do you know why the Muslim world is so poor, can't rise out of its poverty? One main reason, I recently learned, is that the Koran forbids lending money for usury, at any percentage. Period. So they can't borrow money to build things like factories and such. And, it also keeps wealth in the hands of those who happen to have it, because they can't lend it.

Indeed, every economic system, from slavery to feudalism to communism (the system originally practiced by the Mayflower passengers), has been "justified" by the then-prevailing religious regime. Religious arguments in support of economic systems are inherently fallacious.

These two sentences go very well together. If they are true, then the same must be said about religious arguments in support of political systems. They have been used to justify every form of political system, and therefore must be equally fallacious.

And this, I think, is the real issue of what is happening in this country today. In light of the slow demise of religion there has been a meager attempt to justify Individual Rights on a rational basis, as Rand did so well. Thus what we really have is a battle between the secular altruists and the religious altruists. If the argument remains that there are no Individual Rights unless they are “God Given” then we are doomed.

The argument is no longer persuasive because it does contain these fallacies. The choice of freedom no longer actually exists precisely because of that. What, you say? I’m free. Do you know you pay more in taxes than a feudal serf had to? To a great degree this country is living in a dream of what it was 200 years ago and has long since morphed into something else.

Those who mix the two -- merely because they are emotionally attached to both -- are bound to confuse, and sometimes even repel, those who (correctly) find the religious argument unpersuasive in the field of economics.

And that mixing makes the altruistic ethic possible and justified, and results in that very slavery. We are 5/12 slaves. It takes 5 months of labor to pay off your tax burden. That is what “tax freedom day” really means. And that mixing also confuses other issues. For example.

All the hoopla about the Pledge of Allegiance. The whole focus is about the words, Under God. Yet this isn’t the real danger in the Pledge, you could leave that in and it wouldn’t bother me. The Pledge was written by Socialist Minister Francis Bellamy as a lauding of centralized government power.

The whole concept of Pledging "Allegiance" is strictly outside the 'social contract' that the Constitution was intended to be. It was a voluntary association based upon mutual interest, not a binding domination by a central government.

The key word here is ’indivisible’ which was strictly against the ’Original Intent’ of the Founding Fathers, which is always the issue raised about Under God. The Founders always intended there to be a right of secession on the part of any state. So the current argument is a Red Herring and the Pledge should be thrown out for other reasons. This is never considered or discussed. The real issue is Federal Government power which has grown far beyond anything anyone intended. And all these other issues are just distractions.

This is the practical result of "right principles" for wrong reasons. Contradictions always have this result somewhere along the line.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.