Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some very valid points in the posted link. Attacking a person based on a prejudice when trying to discredit something that person does or says is not only wrong, it may fall under the purview of “false witness”. On the other hand, citing or deducing the nature of another, thus bringing into a clearer light, the nature of what that person says or does, is perfectly legitimate, and possibly leads to a better understanding of the person and his/her position or stance on a particular item/situation.
 
Last edited:
here are the closing paragraphs, though the whole thing is good.
Fair Use
What types of ad hominems might then be justified? Walton argues that an ad hominem is valid when the claims made about a person’s character or actions are relevant to the conclusions being drawn. Consider, for example, former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who was caught on a wiretap arranging to hire a prostitute for $4,300. Because this behavior ran counter to Spitzer’s anticorruption platform, its unveiling would prevent Spitzer from governing successfully; thus, criticizing this aspect of his character was relevant and fair. In an earlier scandal, in 1987, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart was seen at a motel with a prostitute. Because his behavior undercut his preaching and status as a Christian role model, a character attack based on this incident would have been spot-on.

In another case, when President Bill Clinton fibbed on national television about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, accusations that he was a liar were not entirely unjust. Although a supporter might argue that Clinton’s sex life was not directly relevant to his ability to govern, his ability to adhere to the truth could certainly be, and his willingness to lie on this occasion could call into question the veracity of his remarks on other subjects.

Of course, we should not discount everything any person says, no matter how badly he or she has been discredited. The fact that a person lies or behaves improperly on one occasion does not mean that he or she lies or behaves inappropriately all the time. Again, a critique of a person’s character should not prevent further examination of the arguments at hand. After all, which position is right is usually independent of a person’s character or conduct.

Being aware of how the ad hominem attack works can help us evaluate which instances of its use we should ignore and which we should consider. Ask yourself: How relevant is a political candidate’s character or action to his or her ability to perform in office? How pertinent is any person’s past or group affiliation to the claims that person makes or to that individual’s expertise in a specific domain? If the character-based attacks are not relevant to these larger issues, then they are best ignored. Instead we should attend to what is really important: What is a person asserting? Why does he or she offer a particular view, and is the view defensible?
Click to expand...
 
Theo520 said:
Though I’ve seen this used more frequently in the News section, this seemed like a better home for an insightful article on use of this logical fallacy. I expect it’s a debate sin we’ve all been guilty of at one time or another
Click to expand...
I think you’re an agent of scientific America. Therefore you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
I think it depends on the context. If you are debating if somebody is appropriate for a position that required some moral qualification, then yes, an ad hominem would be relevant. However in a strictly philosophical discussion, moral Character is generally irrelevant. So digging up somebodies moral failing when debating about the big-bang would be entirely inappropriate.
 
The article does make that point, that it may be relevant to the topic.
But many if not most times it is not so when used
 
Theo520 said:
Though I’ve seen this used more frequently in the News section, this seemed like a better home for an insightful article on use of this logical fallacy. I expect it’s a debate sin we’ve all been guilty of at one time or another
Click to expand...
Actually, the article looks a bit confused, as it does not really define “ad hominem” very precisely.

Normally “ad hominem” refers to an argument of such form:
  1. Mr. X says that Y.
  2. Mr. X is not a good man.
  3. Therefore, not Y.
By itself it is fallacious.

The article seems to also refer to arguments of different form:
  1. Mr. X says that Y.
  2. Not Y.
  3. Therefore, Mr. X is wrong about Y.
  4. Whoever is wrong about Y is a liar [or mistaken].
  5. Therefore, Mr. X is a liar [or mistaken about Y].
  6. Someone who is a liar [or mistaken about Y] should not end up in office Z.
  7. Therefore, Mr. X should not end up in office Z.
Such an argument is not fallacious, nor is any part of it. But such an argument is not really “ad hominem”, even if it does talk about someone’s character.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, not seeing it. Though they could have been clearer, they were spot on - ‘to the man’ as it translates
Putting the focus on the arguer or person being discussed can distract us from the issues that matter. Rather than concentrating on an individual’s character, we should, in these cases, be asking ourselves questions such as, Is the doctor’s advice medically sound? Is the Cruise film entertaining? Is the neighbor’s lawn healthy? Meanwhile ad hominem attacks can also unfairly discredit an individual, especially because such critiques are often effective.
Click to expand...
 
Theo520 said:
Though they could have been clearer, they were spot on - ‘to the man’ as it translates
Click to expand...
But that is not the whole definition.

Look at, let’s say, Fallacies (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Fall 2017 Edition), Ad Hominem : Department of Philosophy : Texas State University, Ad hominem - Wikipedia etc.

“Ad hominem” is not simply “concentrating on an individual’s character”. It is using that to concluding that something that that “individual” said is false.

An example where almost precisely the same reasoning is good would be such:
  1. Mr. X says that Y.
  2. Mr. X is a liar.
  3. Therefore, [probably] not Y.
Instead, this article offers examples where character actually is the very issue being discussed, and discussion of that character does not distract form anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top