In my life’s journey, I’ve had occasion to discuss, debate, and read about a great number of topics across a wide scope. Along the way, I’ve witnessed a fairly large number of faulty arguments being made. These faulty arguments generally fall into two classes:
- Non sequitur (does not follow), and
- Ad hominem (to the man).
The first, non sequitur, refers to any logical argument in which you can’t get from Steps A and B to Step C without breaking the rules of logic. All fallacies are non sequitur arguments of one sort or another.
The second sort of faulty argument, and the focus of this particular article, is the ad hominem argument. One doesn’t have to be in too many debates before he hears this term, and chances are that after a few times hearing it, he may start to use it himself. Most, however, do not truly grasp what it means, even though they think they do.
This article intends to set the record straight.
It’s a Dodge
Ad hominem is Latin for “to the man” , but we must be careful to understand that “ad” in Latin, just as “to” in English, can also mean: at, concerning, or about. In other words, to argue ad hominem is not merely to make an argument “to” a person (as all arguments are made), but to argue about the person, rather than about the issue he has raised. In other words, ad hominem argumentation is a dodge–an attempt to escape the real matter at hand, and argue about something else instead. It is the logical equivalent of this argument:
Person A: You forgot to take out the trash again.
Person B: Oh yeah, well you’re not perfect yourself, Mister!
Notice that the response is not a counter argument, but a counter attack. A counter argument might be something like, “Ah, you assume that since the trash has not been removed, I must have forgotten to do it.” Such a counter argument tends to open up the debate to matters of both form and substance. Interestingly, however, form and substance are exactly where many debates do not want a debate to go! No, what they’d rather do is simply to change the subject and not to debate the original assertion at all!
And that’s what makes ad hominem argumentation so very popular. Unlike the counter argument, the counter attack of the ad hominem retort is intended to suggest that Person A ought to:
- shut up,
- take a different tone,
- back off,
- take out the trash himself,
- cut person B some slack,
- not be so critical,
- realize he has no right to criticize,
- etc.
Ad hominem, therefore, is a dodge, and not a “fallacy”, as many call it. It may sometimes hint at fallacy if one assumes that it is employed in an attempt to make an actual argument. Indeed, this may be easy to assume given the general notion that any reply in a debate should be relevant to the debate itself. As we shall see, however, this is quite often not the case.
Relevancy
In order to understand the real nature of ad hominem argumentation, it will be helpful to imagine a basic conversation about the logic of some matter, considering whether the replies given are relevant to the assertions being made. Let us suppose that Person A asserts to Person B, “I think it is illogical to argue that if it’s Tuesday, it must be raining.” In normal conversations, Person A might expect to hear some such reply as “I agree”, “I disagree”, or “So what?”
All these responses would be relevant to the assertion that Person A has made. But what if Person B’s response were something like: “I don’t like apples” or “Paris is nice in the Spring” or “I have dandruff”? These responses are askew to the assertion that was made. That is, they do not intersect it in the least and have no obvious relevance to the conversation that was begun.
So it is with true ad hominem argumentation. It goes something like this:
Person A: “It is illogical to argue that if it’s Tuesday, it must be raining.”
Person B: “Well, you’re really fat, so why should I listen to you?”
Notice that Person B is not attempting to engage A’s assertion by any logical means, but is dodging that assertion to talk about something else entirely. It is not a logical argument at all, for if it were, it would come out something like this example of a classic syllogism:
Person A: “It is illogical to argue that if it’s Tuesday, it must be raining.”
Person B: “I disagree because 1) it is well established that no fat person can make a valid and true logical argument, and 2) you are a fat person, so therefore, 3) your argument cannot be valid and true.”
Although Person B’s argument is ultimately addressing the messenger rather than the message, it is not a typical example of ad hominem argumentation. Rather, it is an example of a valid-but-false syllogism–a formal logical argument. It is false because the first premise is false. (“No fat person can make a valid and true logical argument.“) No conclusion can be true if one of the two premises upon which it is based is false.
The example above exemplifies the reason that ad hominem arguers do not attempt to use formal syllogism in their ad hominem arguments. If they did, it would more easily expose their reasoning as fallacious. Ad hominem, therefore, is at best a mere hint of an unspoken formal argument. It is an attempt to “fly under the radar”, so to speak–to “pull one over” on the audience without them realizing that they are being duped. It tends only to be effective on audiences who do not grasp the principles of formal logic and is used most often either by people who do not understand formal logic, or by those who are intentionally attempting to influence an audience that does not understand formal logic.
In either way, it’s a bad thing.
Examples of Ad Hominem Argumentation
Perhaps the best way to thoroughly understand exactly what is and is not ad hominem argumentation is to carefully consider some lists of good and bad examples.
Good Examples
- You’re stupid (so you can’t be right about this).
- He doesn’t hold any degree in this field (so he can’t be right about this).
- He obviously has an axe to grind (so he can’t be right about this).
- He’s just trying to get attention for himself (so he can’t be right about this).
- You don’t love me (so you can’t be right about this)
- You’re just a shill for the establishment (so you can’t be right about this).
- You’re just being critical (so you can’t be right about this).
- Well, Billy is a wife-beater, and he says the same thing you’re saying here (so you can’t be right about this).
- What would you know about this? You’re just a woman. (You’re a woman, so you can’t be right about this.)
- You’re too young to challenge me about that (so you can’t be right about this).
- He’s a communist, so nothing he’s saying can be true.
- How dare you (challenge me with that)! (By challenging me, you have somehow done an immoral thing. Therefore, you can’t be right about this.)
Notice how all of these examples attempt to avoid dealing with the actual argument that was put forth. Instead, they attempt to “trump” the logical debate and move instead to what is wrong (supposedly) with the person who made the original argument.
Now let’s look at some statements that are commonly misunderstood as being ad hominem when they are actually not.
Not Ad Hominem
- Your argument is really stupid.
- You are making the same error that the Nazis made.
- You are stubbornly repeating the same argument that has already been disproved repeatedly.
- Can’t you see how dumb this is?
- You obviously don’t understand logic.
- This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my entire life.
- Besides being fallacious, your argument is really hypocritical.
- You don’t seem to be capable of making a consistent argument.
- You are not as good at argumentation as you think you are.
- Your argument is really sloppy.
These types of statements are frequently mislabeled as ad hominem when in fact, they are not. They may beg for further explanation, such as “In what way is my argument really stupid?”, but they are all relevant to the logical debate at hand. Such statements frequently come about in debates that are more conversational in tone–and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Debaters who are ignorant, irrational, and/or dishonest, however, frequently cherry pick such statements from their context in a valid logical rebuttal and attempt to use them to trump the debate process by charging that the person making the rebuttal is engaging ad hominem argumentation. They will respond to “Your argument is really stupid” by saying, “You’re calling me stupid (and that’s an ad hominem attack).” Or they will respond to “You are making the same error that the Nazis made” by saying “You’re calling me a Nazi…“, or by the similarly irrelevant trumping attempt, “You have now invoked Godwin’s Law by mentioning the Nazis in an Internet discussion. Therefore, I can no longer take you seriously (and your entire argument can be righteously ignored).”
Ironically, this last case is itself a form of ad hominem argumentation, for it implies that no person who would mention the Nazis in a debate could possibly have any valid and true argument to make, and ought to be dismissed. And this is true of practically all false charges of ad hominem. That is, these false charges are generally made in order to change the topic from the argument at hand to some discussion on the supposed immorality of the one having called a specific argument “stupid”.
The Irony of It All
That anyone would misidentify all or part of a valid argument as ad hominem and falsely charge another with using it is ironic. I say this because such a false charge has the effect of dodging the true debate at hand, and ad hominem itself is a dodging tactic. Thus does the person making the false charge (of ad hominem) commit the same manner of foul himself! They way most people commit this foul—using it to try to trump or sidestep another’s argument on some supposed moral grounds—it becomes a self-breaking rule. That is, people use it to say, more or less: “You’re talking about me, and that’s a foul!” What they don’t realize, of course, is that they’re now talking about the other person, and by this rule, that should be a foul, too.
To be clear, I’m not saying that it is hypocritical to charge someone with ad hominem when it has really occurred; I’m talking about false charges of ad hominem.
Scariness!
It is very scary to me to see what passes today for sound argumentation. The sheer number of people either engaging in or misunderstanding ad hominem is alarming. What does it say about our society that 1) so few people understand formal logic, and 2) so many people think they do?!
Unless a person is sinister and trying to manipulate others by irrational means and to an irrational end, he would no more willingly use faulty argumentation than he would to wear transparent clothing to work. It’s either in ignorance or demagoguery, therefore, that true ad hominem is used, and both are ominous.
