ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
Ad hominem is a Latin word that means “against the man.” As the name
suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent, to
undermine him instead of his arguments. (https://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/)
Argumentum ad Hominem is the fallacy of attacking the character or
circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of
seeking to disprove the truth of a statement or the soundness of the argument. It is also
characterized as a personal attack. (https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html)
This fallacy is committed when one resorts to personal attacks instead of
addressing the argument.
Example 1:
Person A: I’m against Duterte’s war on drugs.
Person B: Dilawan!!!
Example 2:
Person A: Instead of attacking Duterte’s drug war, why don’t we focus on the good
things he has done?
Person B: Dutertard alert!!
Example 3:
Attacking a defendant's character rather than addressing the actual facts of the alleged
criminal activity - "You haven't held a steady job since 1992. Worse than that, we
couldn't find a single employer who'd provide you with a good reference."
2 TYPES OF ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
1. ABUSIVE AD HOMINEM
It is a direct attack on the person. When the attack on the person is
relevant to the argument, it is not a fallacy.
It is the fallacy that that an agent's belief has not been proved (or is
mistaken) because that person is somehow deficient as evidenced
by some undesirable aspects of that person's character,
personality, morality, or competence.
(https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html)
This type of ad hominem argument involves attacking the personal
traits of a person in order to invalidate his or her arguments.
Since arguments are not persons they cannot literally be stupid (or
intelligent).
The most common and well-known type of ad hominem fallacy is
just a simple insult and is called the abusive ad hominem. It occurs
when a person has given up attempting to persuade a person or an
audience about the reasonableness of a position and is now
resorting to mere personal attacks.
(https://www.thoughtco.com/argument-against-the-person-250322)
EXAMPLE 1: Saying "That's a stupid argument," really means,
"Only a stupid person would offer such an argument," so this is
really an Ad Hominem - Abusive, even though it appears to be
directed at the argument rather than at the person.
In the abusive ad hominem, the critic attacks his opponent’s
character or insults him in an attempt to discredit him in the eyes of
the audience. This tactic is common in politics, and it may
psychologically sway people. However, it is logically fallacious
because a person’s character (or lack thereof) is logically irrelevant
to the validity of his argument. Even if the critic’s negative claims
about his opponent are true (e.g., he really is a draft-dodger, or he
really did spend time in jail), this has no bearing on the position he
is advocating.
Name-calling is perhaps the most obvious form of the abusive ad
hominem fallacy. When children have a heated disagreement, they
sometimes engage in such behavior.
EXAMPLE 2: “republicans argue for strong family values, but many
of the senators are guilty of adultery!”
2. CIRCUMSTANTIAL AD HOMINEM
It is the fallacy that someone's belief has not been proved (or is
mistaken) because that person's position is motivated by actions or
personal circumstances which most likely bias that person's
judgment. (https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html)
This type of argument attempts to raise suspicions about the bias of
the individual making the original argument. If someone says, “Well,
he would say that, wouldn’t he,” this is ad hominem circumstantial.
Dismissing an argument by attacking an entire class of people who
presumably accept that argument is called the circumstantial ad
hominem. The name is derived from the fact that it addresses the
circumstances of those who hold the position in question.
(https://www.thoughtco.com/argument-against-the-person-250322)
The circumstantial ad hominem fallacy is when a critic simply
dismisses a person’s argument based on the arguer’s
circumstances.
EXAMPLE 1: Suppose Susie makes an argument that taxes on
gasoline should be increased. Her opponent, Bobby, tries to refute
this by pointing out that Susie’s job is tax-supported, so she is
strongly motivated to argue for higher taxes. Bobby concludes that
Susie’s argument is wrong since Susie has a bias. Bobby has
committed the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy—just because
Susie is strongly motivated to defend a particular position does not
mean that her argument is faulty.
EXAMPLE 2: “ Aren’t you an atheist? Then you should support
same sex marriage”; or “if you are really an anti-poverty and
malnutrition advocate, then agree that abortion is moral and legal.”
