ad hominem uses and abuses

When you think of an argument, or let us say a quarrel, what comes to mind? Logically speaking, such terms as syllogism, validity, or soundness may immediately pop up; however, when the typical man or woman hears the words ‘argument’ or ‘dispute’ they most likely immediately think of an irrational exchange of insults or the uncontrollable rising of emotion leading to unfortunate outcomes. I certainly do not wish to advocate thinking about arguments in this fashion, but it is interesting that this laymen’s definition may indeed have more accuracy than one might think in important and public matters. My aim is to exploit ad hominem abuses, while maintaining that there is room for acceptable uses for the ad hominem argument. Generalized use of fallacious arguments of this kind poses a significant threat to the emergence and acceptance of rational thought in important issues such as politics and religion.

An argument ad hominem is a logical fallacy that pertains to replying to an argument via criticizing the arguer as opposed to the argument itself. In logical terms:

• A claims B
• A is not credible for some reason
• B is false

For example, if I were to claim, “Life supervenes logic” and Fallacious Freddy retorts, “Life does not supervene logic because you are a complete lunatic” then our friend Fallacious Freddy (pardon alliteration) is guilty of the ad hominem fallacy. This seems somewhat obvious on the face of it, but still it is quite commonly used. This is used in informal ‘arguments’ all the time. “You don’t have much experience in this area so you must be wrong” is a typical form of the ad hominem fallacy used in everyday situations. Though it is important to allow expert opinion to carry more weight than a non-expert’s opinion, this does not excuse an expert from providing logical proof for any claims they make.

Think politics for a moment. Presidential debates. Is there a single claim made that is not an ad hominem accusation? “Mr. Bush is wrong about taxes because he only cares about the wealthy” or “Mr. Kerry is wrong about the Iraq war issue because he does not know what it is like to be President” could have been claims made by either candidate during debates—and these types of sentiments yielded positive results from their respective support camps. Moreover, what were the voters saying about the candidates? “Mr. Kerry is completely wrong about abortion because he isn’t a good Christian” or “Mr. Bush can’t even speak properly! How could he be right about anything?” were probably typical claims made around election time. It is quite clear that these claims are completely spurious; however, these types of shameless accusations almost certainly influenced a good majority of the public. This brings up an interesting question—are these fallacious arguments uses or abuses of the ad hominem fallacy? Logically, they are blatant abuses of syllogistic principles and reason, but otherwise they are quite effective uses of emotional appeal. When it comes to politics, specifically influencing the public, anything goes, as long as the desired effect is achieved. This we already know, so is the frequent use (or abuse) and effectiveness of the ad hominem fallacy a testament to political deterioration, political deceptiveness, public stupidity, or a combination of all three?

Inverted ad hominem is also quite prominent and equally as bogus. It is quite often an appeal to authority or power. In logical form:

• A claims B
• A is a figure of immense power or authority
• B is true

Parents often use fallacious arguments of this sort when attempting to control their children. “I am right because I said so,” says the domineering parent. The Inverted ad hominem fallacy often leads to circularity, or begging the question. If you ask a religious man why the teachings of his religion are correct, he often replies with an appeal to the authority of his god or scripture, which is of course completely circular—you can not prove your religion’s truth value by appealing to its truth value. Though this is completely absurd, it is commonplace. To what can we attribute the seemingly popular prominence of these crazy and illogical methods of argument? Perhaps we can blame it on ignorance or an unwillingness to think beyond standard public outlooks.

There is a valid form of the ad hominem argument pointed out by John Locke. We are able “to press a man with consequences drawn from his own principles or concessions.” In other words, it is permissable to point out inconsistencies between principles and conclusions formed supposedly from those principles. If a military commander from the United States was to claim that the United States military provides the best combat training in the world, and subsequently send a number of his trainees to train in Japan, he would be guilty of a perplexing inconsistency.

Another interesting use of the ad hominem argument is in a court of law. A witness’s credibility may become an important point of dispute, because her personal credibility reflects her ability to make accurate claims. A witness who is proven to be a pathalogical liar would not be able to enter any accusations into official testimony.

When evaluating arguments, the ad hominem fallacy is important to keep in mind. It is crucial that we rise above petty insults and irrelevant assertions that are merely used to take our attention off the issue at hand. As individuals if we are able to look past all sorts of logically illegal argument ad hominem uses and abuses, we are going to be better prepared to consider arguments reasonably and calmly.