I.

Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack. A. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personemargument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

B.

II.

The "tu quoque" or charging the locutor with "being just like the person" the locutor speaking about, is a narrower variety of this fallacy. In other words, rather than trying to disprove a remark about someone's character or circumstances, one accuses the locutor of having the same character or circumstances. A. B. In cross examination or in debate, the point is often expressed as "My point might be bad, but yours is worse." If the subject includes an assessment of behavior, the point can be put "So I do x [some specific action], but you do too."

III.

Since the circumstantial variety of the ad hominem can be regarded as a special case of the abusive, the distinction between the abusive and the circumstantial is often ignored.
Informal Structure of ad Hominem Person L says argument A. Person L's circumstance or character is not satisfactory. Argument A is not a good argument.

IV. V.

Examples of the ad hominem:

A prosecutor asks the judge to not admit the testimony of a burglar because burglars are not trustworthy.

Francis Bacon's philosophy should be dismissed since Bacon was removed from his chancellorship for dishonesty.

Prof. Smith says to Prof. White, "You are much too hard on your students," and Prof. White replies, "But certainly you are not the one to say so. Just last week I heard several of your students complaining."

I can't see that we should listen to Governor Smith's proposal to increase the sales tax on automobiles. He has spent the last twenty years in state government and is hardly an unbiased source.

VI.

Uses of ad hominem considerations: . When examining literary or philosophical works, looking at the author's character or circumstances can sometimes provide insight into that person's ideas. In other words, ad hominemconsiderations can show motives and can sometimes provide explanation. However, these considerations do not demonstrate the truth or falsity of the ideas. A. The character of a person is often relevant in consideration of the sincerity of views being offered and so is often relevant to pragmatic decision-making.

VII.

Self-reference and ad hominem: . If a philosopher presents a "naturalistic view of knowledge," arguing that all knowledge is a function of the adjustment of an organism to its environment and at the same time pleads that his own knowledge is an

exception to this generalization, then the ad hominem fallacy would occur. A. If William James were to claim that all philosophers were either tenderminded or tough-minded except for him with respect to his own variety of pragmatism, then an ad hominem appeal should not be ruled inadmissible against James.. Alias:

Argumentum ad Hominem Translation: "Argument against the man" (Latin) The Fallacy of Personal Attack

Example: William Bennett, leader of the antirap campaign, [has] had no trouble finding antipolice and antiwomen lyrics to quote in support of [his] claim that "nothing less is at stake than civilization" if rappers are not rendered silent. So odious are the lyrics, that rarely do politicians or journalists stop to ask what qualifies Bennett to lead a moralistic crusade on behalf of America's minority youth. Not only has he opposed funding for the nation's leader in quality children's programming (the Public Broadcasting Corporation), he has urged that "illegitimate" babies be taken from their mothers and put in orphanages. Source: Barry Glassner, The Culture of Fear (1999), p. 122. Analysis Exposition: A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate. Exposure: Ad Hominem is the most familiar of informal fallacies, andwith the possible exception of Undistributed Middlethe most familiar logical

fallacy of them all. It is also one of the most used and abused of fallacies, and both justified and unjustified accusations of Ad Hominem abound in any debate. The phrase "ad hominem argument" is sometimes used to refer to a very different type of argument, namely, one that uses premisses accepted by the opposition to argue for a position. In other words, if you are trying to convince someone of something, using premisses that the person acceptswhether or not you believe them yourself. This is not necessarily afallacious argument, and is often rhetorically effective. For instance, ad hominem is one of the most frequently misidentified fallacies, probably because it is one of the best known ones. Many people seem to think that any personal criticism, attack, or insult counts as an ad hominem fallacy. Moreover, in some contexts the phrase "ad hominem" may refer to an ethical lapse, rather than a logical mistake, as it may be a violation of debate etiquette to engage in personalities. So, in addition to ignorance, there is also the possibility of equivocation on the meaning of "ad hominem". For instance, the charge of "ad hominem" is often raised during American political campaigns, but is seldom logically warranted. We vote for, elect, and are governed by politicians, not platforms; in fact, political platforms are primarily symbolic and seldom enacted. So, personal criticisms are logically relevant to deciding who to vote for. Of course, such criticisms may be logically relevant but factually mistaken, or wrong in some other non-logical way. Subfallacies:

Abusive: An Abusive Ad Hominem occurs when an attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition such as appearanceis offered as evidence against her position. Such attacks are often effective distractions ("red herrings"), because the opponent feels it necessary to defend herself, thus being distracted from the topic of the debate. Circumstantial: A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent's position. This fallacy is often introduced by phrases such as: "Of course, that's what you'd expect him to say." The fallacy claims that the only reason

why he argues as he does is because of personal circumstances, such as standing to gain from the argument's acceptance. This form of the fallacy needs to be distinguished from criticisms directed at testimony, which are not fallacious, since pointing out that someone stands to gain from testifying a certain way would tend to cast doubt upon that testimony. For instance, when a celebrity endorses a product, it is usually in return for money, which lowers the evidentiary value of such an endorsementoften to nothing! In contrast, the fact that an arguer may gain in some way from an argument's acceptance does not affect the evidentiary value of the argument, for arguments can and do stand or fall on their own merits.

Poisoning the Well Tu Quoque

Q&A: Q: Despite taking an introduction to logic course last semester, I still cannot differentiate between when it's permissible to attack someone's credibility and when it's considered an ad hominem. Could you shed some light on this for me?Paul Margiotis A: The main thing to keep in mind is the distinction between argumentation and testimony. The whole point of logic is to develop techniques for evaluating the cogency of arguments independently of the arguer's identity. Analysis of the Example: This is an Ad Hominem of the circumstantial variety. Glassner suggests that Bennett is somehow unqualified to criticize rap music because of positions he allegedly took on other issues. However wrong Bennett may have been on other issues, such as the funding of public television or illegitimacy, that does not mean that his criticisms of rap were mistaken.