Ad hominem fallacy, when one attacks without arguments

The fallacy ad hominenin logic, gives shape to that type of very common resource where someone chooses to attack us not for the arguments we present or defend, but for what we are. The message stops mattering and our physique, our gender, personality, religion or any aspect unrelated to the plot itself becomes more important.

“Did Alejandro say that? So it must be a complete lie just because it comes from him.“. These types of comments undoubtedly represent a type of reality that is often seen in multiple contexts. It is that disrespectful attempt to discredit someone who defends an idea; putting the focus of attention on an irrelevant aspectin something that has nothing to do with the situation itself.

Thus, and beyond what we may think, the fallacy ad hominem It is a rhetorical strategy as powerful as it is effective. What’s more, studies such as the one carried out by Ralph M. Barnes and Heather M. Johnston, from the University of Montana (United States) tell us that attacks on positions based on fallacies ad hominem They are as effective as evidence-based attacks.

If this is so, it is due to a simple reason: because of the impact it creates. It is known, for example, that It is common to use it in political media, as well as in judicial contexts and even in advertising campaigns.. The objective is always the same: to discredit whoever is in front of us, hence its Latin root and meaning: ad hominem, against man.

The ad hominem fallacy, the need to reflect a type of abuse

Trudy Govier, renowned philosopher from the University of Lethbridge, Canada and author of multiple works on logic and argumentation, points out something important. First of all we must understand what a fallacy is.

It is an error in reasoning, a failure that occurs when we give seemingly credible arguments but that, in reality, are completely false.. Likewise, fallacies can be committed through an inadvertent error or through an obvious attempt to manipulate and dissuade others.

On the other hand, It is interesting to know that the fallacy ad hominen It has been used since ancient times, but with a somewhat different meaning from the current one. For example, Galileo often used it, as did John Locke or Saint Thomas Aquinas. In all of them this fallacy came to represent rather that attempt to make the opponent see that his ideas were wrong. The aim was not to discredit him, but rather to make him see his own error.

Curiously, It is from the 19th century onwards that this principle of logic begins to change. And it is done in an attempt to reflect a behavior that is frequently appreciated. The one where you attack someone just to discredit their argument or point of view.

It is clearly a type of abuse, a way of causing harm to another.

Types of ad hominem fallacy

In political campaigns, attacks ad hominem They are as common as they are expected. An example: it is known that during the presidential campaign in the United States of 1800, John Adams was called “a fool, a hypocrite, a boor, and an unprincipled oppressor.” His rival, Thomas Jefferson, was described as “an uncivilized atheist, un-American, and a tool of the wicked French.”

Another example. One of Donald Trump’s most recurring stratagems is precisely the fallacy ad hominem Thus, it is common that instead of refuting the arguments of his opponents with a minimum of logic or evidence, he resorts to this principle of logic to discredit the person in the most unfounded way (remember, for example, how he attacked a disabled journalist of the New York Timesfocusing only on this condition).

On the other hand, it is important to note that we can differentiate three types of this principle of argumentative logic. They are the following.

Fallacy tod hominem abusive

The fallacy ad hominem The aim is to cause direct damage to the person arguing an idea. There is a clear humiliation and a desire to violate the other. Thus, an example of this type of fallacy is what Donald Trump showed when he mocked the New York Times journalist.

Another example would be the following:

I belong to an environmentalist party because I am concerned about the environment.

⇒ “You belong to an environmental party only because it is fashionable now, you have no values ​​or character and you allow yourself to be carried away only by current trends.”

ad hominem circumstantial

in the fallacy circumstantial ad hominen The aim is to attack a person because of the circumstance in which they find themselves (whether it is true or not). Some examples would be:

“We cannot accept the arguments of politician X because he is financed by the Russians.”“It is better not to trust this doctor because he is overweight.”“You shouldn’t watch Tom Cruise movies because he practices Scientology.”

Fallacy Ad hominem tu quoque (and you too)

to the fallacy ad hominem It is also known as the fallacy of hypocrisy. It is about attacking someone by looking for their own contradictions, regardless of whether these have occurred or not. These would be a simple example:

⇒“And you tell me to stop smoking? But until recently you smoked two packs a day!”

Examples of ad hominem fallacy

To better understand what this type of fallacy consists of, here are some examples:

“Of course, since it’s not your turn, the reform seems very good to you!”“Samantha says that Real Madrid didn’t play well. But what will a woman know about soccer?”“What do you know about science if you haven’t even finished primary education?”“Nietzsche’s philosophy is wrong, because he ended up crazy”“What can a priest know about children if he has not had any?”

How to respond to an Ad Hominem fallacy?

It must be taken into account that the logical scheme of the fallacy ad hominem is the next:

A affirms p → ““You say my actions are immoral.”A is not a credible person → “but you have been in jail”Therefore, p is questionable → ““then you cannot say that my actions are immoral”

First of all, One should not fall into the error of thinking that, because there is an ad hominem argument, A’s statement would be true.. The fact that someone discredits his interlocutor does not prove anything about the falsity or truth of what he says.

In addition, It is not advisable to respond to a fallacy ad hominem with another, but to try to defend oneself by appealing to reasoning. Some ways to respond could be the following:

“If you are done with your insults, I would like to hear your reasoning.”

“Forget I said it. Suppose someone else says it: What would be your reasons for rejecting it?”

Finally, It must be taken into account that the fact of insulting a person within a speech does not necessarily imply a fallacy. ad hominem. This is limited to discrediting the person who is offering an argument, so as not to have to criticize the argument itself.

To conclude, as we see, These types of abusive arguments occur excessively frequently in many of our contexts.. The worst of all is that they have an effect, create an impact and harm those who receive them.

Thus, when talking or arguing with someone, we always try to focus exclusively on the arguments they give us. Let’s leave aside personal aspects, circumstances and other types of realities that have nothing to do with what is being discussed.

You might be interested…