A doctor tells her patient to lose weight, and the patient thinks: “If my doctor really believed that, she wouldn’t be so fat.” A movie aficionado pans the latest Tom Cruise flick because Cruise is a Scientologist. A homeowner ignores a neighbor’s advice on lawn care because the neighbor is a ... you name it: Democrat, Republican, Christian or atheist. These examples illustrate classic uses of ad hominem attacks, in which an argument is rejected, or advanced, based on a personal characteristic of an individual rather than on reasons for or against the claim itself.
Putting the focus on the arguer or person being discussed can distract us from the issues that matter. Rather than concentrating on an individual’s character, we should, in these cases, be asking ourselves questions such as, Is the doctor’s advice medically sound? Is the Cruise film entertaining? Is the neighbor’s lawn healthy? Meanwhile ad hominem attacks can also unfairly discredit an individual, especially because such critiques are often effective.
Although ad hominem arguments have long been considered errors in reasoning, a recent analysis suggests that this is not always the case. In his new book, Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric, University of Winnipeg philosopher Douglas Walton proposes that fallacies such as the ad hominem are better understood as perversions or corruptions of perfectly good arguments. Regarding the ad hominem, Walton contends that although such attacks are usually fallacious, they can be legitimate when a character critique is directly or indirectly related to the point being articulated.
If Walton is right, distinguishing clearly between these cases is important to evaluating the validity of statements people make to us about others. Good or fair uses of ad hominem critiques should, in fact, persuade us, whereas unwarranted uses should not.
Corruptions
Which ad hominem arguments should we aim to ignore? In the so-called abusive ad hominem, someone argues that because a person has a bad character, we should not accept that person’s claims. For instance, during the presidential campaign of 1800, John Adams was called “a fool, a gross hypocrite and an unprincipled oppressor.” His rival, Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was deemed “an uncivilized atheist, anti-American, a tool for the godless French.” Accusations like these can easily foreclose on intelligent political discourse about what might make either candidate a good president.
Another illegitimate form of the ad hominem is the tu quoque, or “you, too” version, which is an attempt to discredit a person’s claims because the person has failed to follow his or her own advice. The example of the overweight doctor prescribing weight loss falls into this category. Its use is unfair because, after all, there are good reasons for losing weight, and the fact that a doctor has not managed to heed her own advice should not dissuade others from trying to follow it.
The Cruise attack, on the other hand, exemplifies “poisoning the well,” another brand of ad hominem attacks in which the character assault is launched before the listener has a chance to form his or her own opinion on a subject—in this case, Cruise’s film. If successful, the reminder that Cruise is affiliated with Scientology will bias the listener against the movie. This partiality is unjustified, because Cruise’s religious affiliation is not germane to his acting abilities or the entertainment value of his movie.
Fair Use
What types of ad hominems might then be justified? Walton argues that an ad hominem is valid when the claims made about a person’s character or actions are relevant to the conclusions being drawn. Consider, for example, former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who was caught on a wiretap arranging to hire a prostitute for $4,300. Because this behavior ran counter to Spitzer’s anticorruption platform, its unveiling would prevent Spitzer from governing successfully; thus, criticizing this aspect of his character was relevant and fair. In an earlier scandal, in 1987, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart was seen at a motel with a prostitute. Because his behavior undercut his preaching and status as a Christian role model, a character attack based on this incident would have been spot-on.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentTo drive the "Cruise attack" to the extreme, would the same logic also apply to a film starring (and making heaps of money from it), say, Adolf Hitler? If not, where does one draw the line in the moral quicksand?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, if the argument is that Tom Cruise's (or A. Hitler's) film is bad because the actor is a bad person or belongs to a bad organization,then that is an invalid ad-hominem and a non-sequitor, period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the argument is made that you shouldn't see the film -irrespective of it's quality - because you would be benifitting Hitler or the Church of Scientology then it's a valid ethical argment, not an ad-hominem at all. Cruise might then argue that Scientology is not bad, or that he doesn't donate more money to it the more money he makes, so your attending his film wouldn't benefit the COS, making his membership irrelevent. (I have no idea what his financial arrangements are in that regard.)
So, in other words we can still discredit someone's character by saying he or she is atheist, anti-American, a tool for the godless [insert epithet here] - all's well then.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess dismissing someone as an atheist would be a valid ad hominem if you think the only origin of ethics and morality is religion, which seems to be a widespread idea in the States
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would also be a valid ad hominem if the atheism forms the foundation for an ideology or argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, this is all irrelevant anyway. A true ad hominem is an attack designed to distract from the issue at hand.
Traditional logic has always maintained that not all instances citing character or motivation are ad hominem attacks, so the author of this book has discovered nothing new at all.
I think character attacks happen for many different reasons - Quite often to protect us from having to face a point of view we would rather not face. On the other hand, though, character attacks can also happen because we are investigating the veracity of someones speech - many politicians/suitors/employers/etc make promises they do not intend to keep, and we know it and try to ferret out who can be trusted to keep their word by looking at how they lead their lives - thus the infamous "How does he treat the waitress?" assessment of the first date. So yes, we certainly should look at a persons proposals and motives for making that proposal, but character attacks Can be one way we try to get behind the smile and see the hidden thought and future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello All,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am enjoying the discussion.
Is a construction such as "You can't judge a man unless you've walked a mile in his moccasins," or, "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand" be considered ad hominem attacks?
Looking forward to reading responses, JerseyRomer
I have to disagree with the conclusions of this article. We can judge a person's character by their actions, and this should definitely affect our decision to put them in certain positions, or allow them certain responsibilities. But this still can not discredit their arguments. If a liar tells us that lying is wrong, this makes him a hypocrite, but it does not invalidate his claim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article clarifies something I've been thinking for a long time: that character attacks are, for the most part, a cheap shot and to be viewed with suspicion. But, in those cases in which a person, for example a candidate for political office, makes claims based on character, then that person's character becomes fair game. For instance, Bush has often trumpeted his devotion to the war on drugs, and during his tenure as Governor of Texas he imprisoned countless young people, mostly black and Latino, for minor drug crimes. Therefore, how is it wrong to scrutinize his own past for similar offenses? Yet, those who attempted to do so during his presidential campaigns were ignored or castigated as "dredging up the remote past."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems like the author is really skirting the issue when he brings up Gov. Spitzer or Rev. Swaggart. He does not make clear whether such an attack would be an attack on the person, or an attack on the principles that they claim to uphold. It looks like a tu quoque. If you are drawing the conclusion that the principles that they claim to uphold (such as those condemning prostitution) are invalid as a result of their actions, that conclusion is fallacious (same as with the chubby doctor). If you are drawing the conclusion that the person is not fit for office because they seem to disregard the principles that they claim to uphold, that is not really an ad hominem attack. Such an argument merely points out the logical contradiction of their own actions - making the case that each man clearly does not value what he claims to value, and by extension that he may not value what most of society deems valuable (such as the discouragement of the practice of prostitution). Pointing out hypocrisy is not an ad hominem attack in any sense that I understand. I suppose there are two camps on what sin should be stressed in these sorts of cases ( I have much less trouble with the fact that Larry Craig is obviously gay, than I do with the fact that he is a liar and a bigot).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI enjoy the fact the author speaks of Clinton and his inability to confess his infidelity. He actually used his legally trained mind to avoid this. He technically never lied by parsing finely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWas this just an ad hominem attack?
I was glad to see someone illuminate the fair use of ad hom, but I don’t think they actually went far enough in justifying it. Consider “poisoning the well†as an example. Just like we don’t read every possible source of information when making a decision on buying a car, we don’t consider every possible source of information when we want to learn something. We employ heuristics - we take shortcuts. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to do much. We thus assign credibility rating to the sources that subsequently allows us to decide a priori who we will listen to. While technically, from a classical logic standpoint, this strategy will lead to errors, I don’t believe that a binary, black and white type, approach is an adequate way to look at this situation. Such examination leaves too much out of the context that is very relevant to making a proper judgment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, I’ve watched Bill O’Reilly enough times to have a pretty good idea of his fundamental assumptions and his thought process. So, someone comes along and says “Hey, I know you’re interested in the evolutionary theory. Bill will be talking about it tonightâ€. Do I cancel my plans so I could tune in and get some insight or do I respond with something like “Thanks, but there’s a 13 year old Joe doing a presentation on the same topic in his mid school at the same time. I think I’ll go check that one out insteadâ€. Can I be wrong about my judgment about Bill? Absolutely. Likely? Not! So, if I’m also advising you against watching O’Reilly, I’m technically “poisoning the wellâ€, and yes, it doesn’t logically follow that O’Reilly won’t have anything important to say to you, BUT, if I established a good track record credibility with you, you’d be better off following my advice. And that’s a perfectly good strategy and justification of the ad hominem.
I am having trouble with the ad hominem fallacy, ad hominem nonfallacy, or not an ad hominem at all . Any easy way to get a grasp on this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this