Difference between revisions of "Ad hominem"
m |
(Expansion with multiple additional supporting references and links) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ''Ad hominem'' means "against the man", rather than against what the man is saying. This Latin phrase describes one of the oldest known [[logical fallacies]]. | + | {{Fallacy|Ad hominem}}''Ad hominem'' means "against the man", rather than against what the man is saying. This Latin phrase describes one of the oldest known [[logical fallacies]]. |
| − | + | == Classical structure == | |
| + | Classically, this fallacy casts doubt on what a person is saying because of (imputed) flaws in the person's character, or circumstances peculiar to the person, that are unrelated to the matter at hand. Its usual structure is: | ||
| − | + | # A makes claim X. | |
| + | # A has a flaw in his character, or else his circumstances mean that X somehow serves a special interest of A, etc. | ||
| + | # Therefore X is false.<ref name=Nizkor>The Nizkor Project, [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html Fallacy: Ad Hominem] (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref><ref name=Lander>Lander University, Department of Philosophy, ''[http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html Philosophy 103, Introduction to Logic: Argumentum ad Hominem]''. (Retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Why Ad Hominem is Objectionable == | ||
| + | The ''ad hominem'' is objectionable and usually fallacious practice because: | ||
| + | |||
| + | # It is an appeal to emotion rather than to fact.<ref name=heritage>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem Definition of ad hominem] from ''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language'', 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006 (retrieved April 9, 2007)</ref> | ||
| + | # It introduces an irrelevant consideration.<ref name=Engel>S. Morris Engel, ''With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies'', 5th ed., St. Martin's Press, 1994, pp. 198-206. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html The Fallacy Files]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Forms of Ad Hominem == | ||
| + | The ad hominem fallacy can take several forms. The most common of these are personal abuse<ref name=Engel/> and the introduction of an irrelevant circumstance.<ref name=Engel/> Some debaters use the ''ad hominem'' attack pre-emptively, a technique known as ''poisoning the well.''<ref name=Engel2>Engel, ''op. cit.'', pp. 206-209. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html The Fallacy Files]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | In a special form of ''ad hominem'' that is closely akin to [[special pleading]], a debater attempts to deflect criticism of himself by asserting that his opponent has the identical character flaw. This form is called ''tu quoque'' ([[Latin]], "thou too"). The proverbial exprerssion of this fallacy is "It takes one to know one" or "Let the pot call the kettle black."<ref name=Warburton>Nigel Warburton, ''Thinking from A to Z'', 2nd. ed., "Politician's Answer", pp. 103-104. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html The Fallacy Files]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Examples == | ||
| + | The statement 'Richard Wagner was an opera composer much admired by the Nazis' might be considered an ad hominem attack on Wagner's music. It is true, and in some contexts might be a relevant comment. But if someone says it in order to suggest that Wagner was a bad composer, then it's an ad hominem attack, because whether some bad people liked his music is not a relevant comment on the quality of his music. | ||
As another example, the statement 'The atheist Karl Marx believed in taking wealth from the rich and redistributing it to the poor' might be considered an ad hominem attack on the policy of income redistribution. Karl Marx may or may not have been right to advocate income redistribution; but whether he was an atheist is irrelevant to that question. So if the speaker mentions that he is atheist (to someone who considers atheism bad) when the topic under discussion is income distribution, then that's an ad hominem attack. | As another example, the statement 'The atheist Karl Marx believed in taking wealth from the rich and redistributing it to the poor' might be considered an ad hominem attack on the policy of income redistribution. Karl Marx may or may not have been right to advocate income redistribution; but whether he was an atheist is irrelevant to that question. So if the speaker mentions that he is atheist (to someone who considers atheism bad) when the topic under discussion is income distribution, then that's an ad hominem attack. | ||
| − | [[ | + | == Ad Hominem Not Always Fallacious == |
| + | The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable ''only'' when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in [[special pleading]].<ref name=Lander/> Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument--so long as the accusation itself is valid. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == References == | ||
| + | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 16:22, April 9, 2007
Template:FallacyAd hominem means "against the man", rather than against what the man is saying. This Latin phrase describes one of the oldest known logical fallacies.
Classical structure
Classically, this fallacy casts doubt on what a person is saying because of (imputed) flaws in the person's character, or circumstances peculiar to the person, that are unrelated to the matter at hand. Its usual structure is:
- A makes claim X.
- A has a flaw in his character, or else his circumstances mean that X somehow serves a special interest of A, etc.
- Therefore X is false.[1][2]
Why Ad Hominem is Objectionable
The ad hominem is objectionable and usually fallacious practice because:
Forms of Ad Hominem
The ad hominem fallacy can take several forms. The most common of these are personal abuse[4] and the introduction of an irrelevant circumstance.[4] Some debaters use the ad hominem attack pre-emptively, a technique known as poisoning the well.[5]
In a special form of ad hominem that is closely akin to special pleading, a debater attempts to deflect criticism of himself by asserting that his opponent has the identical character flaw. This form is called tu quoque (Latin, "thou too"). The proverbial exprerssion of this fallacy is "It takes one to know one" or "Let the pot call the kettle black."[6]
Examples
The statement 'Richard Wagner was an opera composer much admired by the Nazis' might be considered an ad hominem attack on Wagner's music. It is true, and in some contexts might be a relevant comment. But if someone says it in order to suggest that Wagner was a bad composer, then it's an ad hominem attack, because whether some bad people liked his music is not a relevant comment on the quality of his music.
As another example, the statement 'The atheist Karl Marx believed in taking wealth from the rich and redistributing it to the poor' might be considered an ad hominem attack on the policy of income redistribution. Karl Marx may or may not have been right to advocate income redistribution; but whether he was an atheist is irrelevant to that question. So if the speaker mentions that he is atheist (to someone who considers atheism bad) when the topic under discussion is income distribution, then that's an ad hominem attack.
Ad Hominem Not Always Fallacious
The ad hominem attack is usually fallacious, and becomes reasonable only when the consideration being advanced is directly relevant to whether the other person is generally truthful or reliable, or whether he is telling the truth in this instance, or whether he is engaged in a logical fallacy of his own. The usual case occurs when the other person is engaging in special pleading.[2] Exposure of special pleading is a valid counterargument--so long as the accusation itself is valid.
References
- ↑ The Nizkor Project, Fallacy: Ad Hominem (retrieved April 9, 2007)
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Lander University, Department of Philosophy, Philosophy 103, Introduction to Logic: Argumentum ad Hominem. (Retrieved April 9, 2007)
- ↑ Definition of ad hominem from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006 (retrieved April 9, 2007)
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, 5th ed., St. Martin's Press, 1994, pp. 198-206. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from The Fallacy Files
- ↑ Engel, op. cit., pp. 206-209. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from The Fallacy Files
- ↑ Nigel Warburton, Thinking from A to Z, 2nd. ed., "Politician's Answer", pp. 103-104. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from The Fallacy Files