Thinking Critically: Ad Hominem 4

ad hominem:

1. Appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect.

2. Marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

—Merriam Webster.

Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers

Ad hominem arguments, when used improperly, are fallacious in reasoning and attack the character of an opponent rather than the contents of their argument. This undermines any sort of logical argument and, unfortunately, is probably one of the most used arguments today. Not only is this the most popular type of argument, but it is also (in my opinion) the most ridiculous. There are many different types of ad hominem techniques being used in the world. Some of the most common are as follows:

1. ad hominem abusive (also known as argumentum ad personam) This use of ad hominem attacks the messenger rather than the message. Example: Can you really believe Jacks historical take on slavery? The guy isn’t married, is divorced, has three different kids with three different women. 2. ad hominem circumstantial (also called ad hominem circumstantiae) This use of ad hominem attempts to dismiss someone’s argument as invalid simply because of their circumstance. It implies that because it comes from a certain source, it cannot be taken seriously. “Of course Bob would make such an argument, he is a Muslim.” 3. ad hominem tu quoque (also called you too argument) This argument state that "because you are guilty of the same thing of which you are accusing me, your accusation is meritless." “My old man told me that I shouldn't drink alcohol because I might regret it and it could lead to serious health issues, but he drinks all the time, therefore he can’t be right” Activity: Try to guess correctly what type of ad hominem technique is being used. Click on the answer that you think is right. “Bob’s take on abortion can’t be taken seriously because he is associated with the Republican Party.” Abusive Circumstantial Tu quoque Rebuttal: Those beloning to the Republican Party (as well as any other political party) may very well have motives for their argument. Those who attempt to use this tactic dismiss anything a member of the Republican Party has to say about this topic (abortion). With Republicans excluded, only non-Republican writers have any 'credibility'. Note too that the same fallacious argument can be turned back on any other member of any political party, and so may have a vested interest in disproving any political stance that makes uncompromising claims, challenging them to leave their political background, ect. Thus, the argument is impotent in any case, since it can be applied with equal force to both sides. “Well, of course John, who is a Mormon, would make that argument, since they can't bear to admit their faith might be wrong.” Abusive Circumstantial Tu quoque Rebuttal: A person may well have many motivations for making an argument. However, one must confront the argument itself. Those who attempt to use this tactic to dismiss anything a member of the LDS Church has to say about a topic. With members excluded, only non-Mormon authors have any 'credibility.' Note too that the same fallacious argument can be turned back on any critic—the critic is not a member, and so may have a vested interested in disproving a religion that makes uncompromising truth claims, calls on them to repent, etc. Thus, the argument is impotent in any case, since it can be applied with equal force to both sides.

“You went to jail for stealing eight times, why should I listen to you?” Abusive Circumstantial Tu quoque

Rebuttal: One might be a hypocrite for criticizing someone for something of which one is guilty, but this does not make the claim any less true. If one murderer tells another murderer he is a killer, this does not make the claim untrue, nor does this imply that he is not a murderer. Nibley's footnotes being inaccurate are irrelevent to the question of whether the critic has used misleading footnotes. Even if every Nibley footnote is wrong, this does not excuse the critic from his own mistakes.

“Mike made an interesting point about equal taxes, however he is a drug addict and is known for being a hustler, so you can’t possibly consider anything he has to say.” Abusive Circumstantial Tu quoque Rebuttal: I hope I don't have to provide a detailed rebuttal. "If you truly believe in humanitarian aid, Sally, instead of debating with me, you should be out there helping the cause." Abusive Circumstantial Tu quoquo

Rebuttal: Presumably, Sally's intent was only to argue the benefits of humanitarian aid, not to assert her own personal moral standing. Attacking the speaker's actions therefore does not address her argument.

Political examples: Towards Obama https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_0MTLPgWxs Towards Romney https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3mMj0AZZk