Argumentum ad hominem

{{Logicnav}}
{{title-italics}}
{{Needs sources}}
{{cquote|When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table.|||Anonymous<ref>[https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/07/04/legal-adage/ Legal Advice: Pound the Facts, Pound the Law, Pound the Table]''[[Quote Investigator]]''.</ref>}}
{{cquote|If people are calling names then that means they don't have a good argument against what we're doing. [[Galileo gambit|So I feel that that's actually a statement by them that I must be right]].|||Attorney Gloria Allred<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/gloria-allred-has-been-endlessly-parodied-a-new-movie-aims-to-celebrate-her-instead/2018/02/09/41509b00-0d1d-11e8-95a5-c396801049ef_story.html Gloria Allred has been endlessly parodied. A new movie aims to celebrate her instead.] by Stephanie Merry (February 9, 2018 at 1:04 PM) ''The Washington Post''.</ref>}}
'''Argumentum ad hominem''' (from the [[Latin]], "argument to the person") is an informal [[logical fallacy]] that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking ''the claim-maker'', rather than engaging in an argument or factual refutation of the claim. It can also be an attempt instead of refuting the argument to discredit<ref>[https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/ad-hominem-fallacy/ Ad Hominem Fallacy | Definition & Examples] ''Scribbr'' 21 April 2023</ref> the person making the argument. There are many subsets of ''ad hominem'', all of them attacking the source of the claim rather than attacking the claim or attempting to counter arguments. They are a type of fallacy of relevance.

The fallacy is a subset of the [[genetic fallacy]], as it focuses on ''the source'' of the argument, at the expense of focusing on ''the [[truth]] or falsity'' of the actual argument itself.

An ''ad hominem'' should '''not''' be confused with an insult, which admittedly attacks a person, but does not seek to rebut that person's arguments ''by doing so'' — that type of rhetoric is better termed as [[poisoning the well]].

Of note: if the subject of discussion is '''whether or not somebody is credible and/or competent''' — e.g., "believe X because I am Y" — then it is '''not''' an ''ad hominem'' to criticize their qualifications.

==Alternative names==
*Argument against the man
*Attack on the person
*Character assassination
*Personal attack
*''Ad hom''
*Ad Hominem Attack

==Strict usage==
An ''ad hominem'' argument has the basic form:
{{syl
|2=Person '''A''' makes claim '''X'''.
|4=There is something objectionable about person '''A'''.
|5=C|6=Therefore, claim '''X''' is false.
}}

==How ''ad hominem'' works==
===Usage===
While an ''ad hominem'' attack is not synonymous with "crass insult" ([[#Incidental, unrelated ad hom|see below]]), it is also true that you can make a fallacious ''ad hom'' argument without being rude or crass about it. As a result, these can go unacknowledged as fallacious.

The "circumstantial ''ad hominem''", or "appeal to motive", happens where an opponent's argument is discarded on the basis that they have some motivation for making it; for example, that it is in a banker's best interests to say he has not stolen from his company's accounts, so obviously he has. All "well they would say that, wouldn't they?" arguments are based on this form of ''ad hominem'' and can regularly be found propping up [[conspiracy theories]] when their existence is denied by an authority. A good rule of thumb to spot the fallacy here is that this sort of argument devalues the denial, but does ''not'' bolster the original assertion.

A personal attack can also be a cause for aesthetic judgment, such as in condemning a creative work created by an infamous person. Examples include [[Charles Manson]]'s status as a multiple murderer and [[cult]] leader would affect reviews of his song-writing; similarly with {{wpl|Jimmy Savile}} and {{wpl|Gary Glitter|Gary Glitter's}} [[Rape|sexual assaults]] tainting their previous work; and also regarding [[Richard Wagner]]'s well-known [[antisemitism]] and later associations with the [[Third Reich]], although this hasn't deterred notable Jewish Wagner enthusiasts, including Gustav Mahler and [[Stephen Fry]]. Much less infamously, most people don't find [[Philip Pullman]]'s condemnations of [[C. S. Lewis]] very convincing because Pullman has [[Conflict of interest|a vested interest]] in promoting [[His Dark Materials|his own series]] as a direct competitor to Lewis's work.<ref>[https://www.narniaweb.com/resources-links/are-the-chronicles-of-narnia-sexist-and-racist/ "Are the Chronicles of Narnia Sexist and Racist? A Discussion in Eight Parts"] by Dr. Devin Brown, ''Narnia Web''</ref><ref>[https://reason.com/2008/02/26/a-secular-fantasy/ "A Secular Fantasy: The Flawed But Fascinating Fiction of Philip Pullman"] by [[Cathy Young]], ''[[Reason]]'' Magazine</ref> "Separating the [[art]] from the artist", therefore, has become a core area of [[debate]] in [[Literature|literary]] and artistic criticism.

===As convincing rhetoric===
Often, ''ad hominem'' attacks are used subtly in order to influence<ref>[https://helpfulprofessor.com/ad-hominem-fallacy-examples/ 15 Ad Hominem Fallacy Examples] ''Helpful Professor'' 10 September 2023</ref> the views of their audience. This is often termed [[poisoning the well]] where it occurs before an argument has been made and is a form of [[psychological]] [[priming]]. One could point out bad things that the opponent has done in the past, for instance, or establish an untrustworthy track record. In arguments about [[morality]], one could make the argument that the opponent [[Hypocrisy|does not practice what they preach]]. This is a special case called ''ad hominem [[tu quoque]]''.

''Ad hominem'' arguments can work to convince people via a combination of the [[halo effect]]<ref>[https://www.simplypsychology.org/halo-effect.html Halo Effect In Psychology: Definition And Examples] ''Simply Psychology'' 7 September 2023</ref> and [[cognitive ease]]. The halo effect is a [[cognitive bias]] in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of an unrelated trait, ''e.g.'' treating an attractive person as more [[intelligent]] or more honest. Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of their arguments. With respect to cognitive ease, [[Argumentum ad nauseam|by repeating the ''ad hominem'' enough times]], the cognitive strain required to reject someone's argument is lowered. By sufficient association with negative personal traits, rejecting an argument (with or without thorough evaluation) becomes a favoured option.

==''Not'' ''ad hom''==
There is common confusion about what is, and what isn't, ''ad hominem'' — that is, what does and does not employ fallacious reasoning. Generally, ''ad hominem'' does not mean "crass insult".

===When debating about a person===
As ''ad hominem'' arguments are only fallacious if they do not follow (''non sequitur''), if the argument and the person's character are related, then there may not be a fallacy. In particular, a criticism is not an ''ad hominem'' argument if a person's merits are actually the topic of the argument. If the subject of the debate is the inherent trustworthiness of someone, or what prior probability you would assign to them telling the truth, then their previous track record is relevant to the subject. If debating a person's ability to do a task, then their effectiveness at that task or suitably similar ones is relevant.

===Incidental, unrelated ''ad hominem''===
''Ad hominem'' attacks are strictly fallacious when the attack has little or no bearing on the argument at hand. For example, dismissing a female [[scientist]]'s opinion on a subject ''because'' she is a woman would be a fallacious ''ad hominem'' argument. Dismissing it for being incorrect with relevant evidence or reasoning, but making a sexist comment at the same time, would not employ formally fallacious reasoning. On the flip-side, dismissing that evidence or reasoning ''because'' it came packaged with a sexist comment wouldn't follow.

Of course, the fact that something is not a logical fallacy does not automatically make it a desirable debating tactic. Even if the underlying argument is sound, snide remarks and obnoxious insults can form an effective part of the [[rhetoric]] and cause people to dismiss an argument as the incidental attack triggers their own prior biases ([[#How ad hominem works|see above]]).

==Abuse==
{{cquote|grow a brain [[libtard]]s, and refrain from personal attacks|||u/Quietuus<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20170222154441/https://www.reddit.com/r/BestOfOutrageCulture/comments/4iaa8g/kissing_a_hot_cousin_in_this_case_just_may_be/ Kissing a hot cousin in this case just may be better than promoting communism and socialism, sucking Muslim dick and living a libtard fairy tale dream where the only reality is cashing in that welfare check that is endorsed by those slimy, murderous, disgusting politicians you call "leaders"…] by u/Quietuus (c. 2016) ''Reddit'' (archived from February 22, 2017).</ref>}}

Strangely, the people who cry about "''ad hominem''" the most tend to be those who '''make''' ''ad hominems'' the most. This may be because the people who tend to care about ''ad hominem'' attacks (since they, unlike most people, aren't able to brush them off and get back to the substance of the debate) are also those who aren't able to make more substantive attacks than "You're dumb."

Alternatively, people all too often cry "''ad hominem''" when their debate opponent insults them, while failing to see the opposing arguments.<ref>[http://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html The Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy] by Stephen Bond</ref>

==TL;DR==
*You are wrong and you are an idiot.
::''Not an Ad hominem. That’s just being rude.''
*You are wrong ''because'' you are an idiot.
::''Ad hominem.''

==Additional meanings==
The traditional meaning of the phrase is that an "''argumentum ad hominem''" is one tailored to appeal to the person with whom one is arguing rather than to impartial reason. This definition may be seen in ''Modern English Usage'' by H. H. Fowler,<ref>''Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage'', edited by Jeremy Butterfield (2015) Oxford Unviersity Press. 4<sup>th</sup> ed. ISBN 9780199661350.</ref> a book whose explanations of usage are often taken as highly authoritative, if not definitive. For example, if you wanted to convince someone that Costa Rica was a superior place to go on vacation and you knew that the person was a keen birdwatcher, you might point out that Costa Rica is full of interesting bird life.

Fowler also mentions the following types of argumenta:
*[[argumentum ad baculum|ad baculum]] (stick) or baculimum, threat of force instead of argument;
*[[argumentum ad ignorantiam|ad ignorantiam]], one depending for its effect on the hearer's not knowing something essential;
*[[argumentum ad populum|ad populum]], one pandering to popular passion;
*[[argumentum ad verecundiam|ad vericundiam]] (modesty), one to meet which requires the opponent to offend against decorum.

==See also==
*[[Ad hoc]]
*[[Argumentum ad cellarium]]
*[[Argumentum ex culo]]
*[[Emotional appeal]]
*[[Loaded language]]
*[[Non sequitur]]
*[[Red herring]]
*[[Shill gambit]]
*[[Mike Bara#Talents|Mike Bara]]
{{otherlang
|fr=Argumentum ad hominem (français)
|ru=Ad hominem
|fa= گزاره‌ی حمله‌ی شخصی
}}

==External links==
*{{wpa|Ad hominem}}
*[https://effectiviology.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/ "Ad Hominem: How People Use Personal Attacks to Win Arguments"], Effectiviology
*[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html "Ad Hominem" Fallacy Files]
*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AdHominem "Ad Hominem"], Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20010306023704/http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/socsci/philosophy/logic/fallacy.htm#Attacking%20the%20Person Attacking the Person], Michael J. Connelly
*[https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem Your logical fallacy is ad hominem], [[YLFI]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Ad hominem| ]]
[[Category:Latin phrases]]

Categories: Ad hominem, Latin phrases