Argumentum ad Hominem

It is the easiest thing in the world. It is possibly the most misused/misunderstood of argumentative “tactics.” It makes perfect sense to everyone, no explanation required. What is it? The logical fallacy called:

Argumentum ad Hominem (ad hominem for short)

Translated from ‘the Latin’, this means an argument to the person. This is the well-practised and refined art of ignoring the points a person is attempting to make, valid or not, in favor of a personal attack. If you’re a sophisticate, you might point out that they are a hypocrite, and/or that they’ve changed their opinions recently, and/or that something about them (race, socioeconomic status, educational background) makes them biased regarding the question at hand.

If you’re more traditional, and you feel you are possessed of a finely honed wit, you might simply start calling names.  This is an excellent way to shut down the argument/discussion permanently while also pissing the other person off, which can be very satisfying under certain conditions.

In short, ad hominem means that instead of having a discussion about a relevant or interesting issue, you would prefer to talk about the other person.

Examples/Discussion

• Hypocrisy
  • You go out with a friend to have a few drinks. You both get loaded well past the point of decency while spending far too much money. While you’re doing this the two of you have a stimulating discussion on the dangers of drinking to excess. You talk about the risks to your health, the lowering of important social inhibitions, how awful drunk driving can be, etc. A passer-by overhears the conversation and takes the time out of their evening to say: “You’re both drunk. How could anyone believe anything you have to say on the subject of over-drinking?”
  • This is the “No, you!” or “You too!” form. Are they correct that you are being hypocritical? Of course. Much like a nutritionist lecturing on a healthy diet while drinking a full-sugar soda, a smoker expounding on their fear of lung cancer, or a full-blown alcoholic who is perfectly aware of the self-harm they’re committing.
  • Does this make you wrong? Not necessarily. It doesn’t even make you the wrong person to talk about the subject. Hypocrisy does not disqualify us from making well-reasoned points. It only means we have a (perfectly human) ‘knowing/doing gap.’
• Changed opinions
  • Observing that the person you are speaking with used to believe differently could be an interesting aspect of conversation. However, it doesn’t have any bearing on the argument they’re making. The argument must stand or fall on its own internal consistency, evidence, morality, etc.
  • “You didn’t believe that the last time we spoke!”
  • … So what? This is what we do. We change, we mature, we learn. If we’re going to hold each other stubbornly to behaviors and beliefs of the past, I might as well go around harassing everyone every time I’m in a public restroom: “I know for a fact that you used to wear a diaper! You don’t belong on that toilet!”
• Circumstantial distraction
  • Circumstantial ad hominem is terribly prevalent in today’s social and political discussions. Jeff Bezos could come up with the world’s most practical, genius plan for eliminating poverty, and the only thing we’d hear is, “You’re the world’s richest person! You HAVE NOTHING TO SAY ON THE SUBJECT OF POVERTY!”
  • That’s an easy case, but we can reverse it just as well. Take someone who has been poverty-stricken their entire lives. Maybe it’s partly their fault, maybe it was always hopelessly out of their control. Regardless, they start gaining traction in the media with advice on how to become financially independent. Who take their advice, regardless of its efficacy?
  • Where someone comes from, and what their current circumstances are, does not dictate the subjects they may speak to. Again, their argument must stand or fall on its own merits.
• Association
  • “You’re friends with so-and-so, and they told me the other day that they don’t believe in stars. I know you’re friends with them! So don’t talk to me about astronomy, please.”
  • The first example is discounting an argument or opinion because the argumenter hasn’t eliminated from their lives anyone holding a contrary, uninformed opinion. This is unreasonable, and out of their control.
  • The reverse would be an opinion or argument shared by someone distasteful. In politics, the various sides often distance themselves from views held by the opposition, even if they agree. If both sides advocate eliminating the death penalty, one side will change because sharing an opinion with the opposition will confuse and frustrate voters.
  • If you are having a debate and making your point convincingly, but some character interrupts to reveal that the organization ‘People for Disposing of All Trash in Your Local River’ (PDATYLR) shares that view… well, that’s unfortunate, but it is not a reason that your argument is a poor one.
• Name-Calling
  • Person 1: If this, then that. Moreover, if A & B = C, it follows that D = E.
  • Person 2: “Yeah, well, you’re a moron. So it follows that your argument sucks.”
  • This is spectacularly unhelpful.

Wrap-up

It is important to acknowledge that these tactics do work. They can be said to be effective. It depends on your goals, doesn’t it? If your goal is to distract and avoid communication, carry on.

If your goal is understanding and productive dialog, then you should avoid ad hominem mistakes.