Ad Hominem

Introduction

Ad hominem is not a literary device. It is a type of logical fallacy used mostly in debates, discussions, and arguments. It is important to be aware of this fallacy so that you can recognize when others use it and avoid making the same mistake yourself.

Etymology and Meanings of Logical Fallacy of Ad Hominem

Etymology of Ad Hominem:

The term “ad hominem” comes from the Latin phrase “argumentum ad hominem,” meaning “argument against the person.” It first appeared in the 16th century in philosophical and legal contexts and later became popular in the 18th century as a rhetorical term. Nowadays, the term refers to any attack against the person making an argument, rather than the argument itself. It often occurs in political and social discourse to discredit an opponent’s argument without addressing its substance.

Meanings:

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy in which an argument attacks the character or personal traits of an opponent instead of addressing the substance of their argument. Ad hominem attacks can take various forms such as;

1. Personal insults
2. Accusations of bias
3. Questioning an opponent’s motives.

Definition of Logical Fallacy of Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem is a literary device that involves attacking an opponent’s character or personal traits instead of addressing the substance of their argument. It is a logical fallacy that aims to undermine the credibility of the person making the argument rather than addressing the issue at hand. Its use occurs in political and social discourse, where opponents use personal attacks to discredit their opponents without engaging with the substance of their argument.

Types of Logical Fallacy of Ad Hominem

There are several types of ad hominem arguments used in political and social discourse:

1. Abusive ad hominem: This is the most common type of ad hominem. It involves using personal insults and name-calling to attack an opponent’s character rather than addressing their argument.
2. Circumstantial ad hominem: This type of ad hominem involves attacking an opponent’s motives or personal circumstances rather than addressing the substance of their argument. For example, accusing someone of being biased because of their personal interests or affiliations.
3. Tu quoque ad hominem: This type of ad hominem involves accusing an opponent of hypocrisy or inconsistency rather than addressing the substance of their argument. For example, accusing someone of being a hypocrite for advocating for a certain policy while not following it themselves.
4. Guilt by association ad hominem: This type of ad hominem involves attacking an opponent based on their affiliation with a certain group or individual, rather than addressing the substance of their argument. For example, accusing someone of being radical because they associate with a certain group.

Common Examples of Logical Fallacy of Ad Hominem

1. Personal insults: This is the most common form of ad hominem, where an individual attacks the character or personal traits of their opponent, instead of addressing the substance of their argument. For example, calling someone stupid or ignorant to discredit their argument.
2. Accusations of bias: This is a circumstantial ad hominem, where a person attacks his/her opponent’s motives or personal circumstances to discredit his/her argument. For example, accusing someone of being biased because of their political affiliation.
3. Questioning an opponent’s credibility: This is another form of circumstantial ad hominem, where a person attacks his/her opponent’s credibility to discredit his/her argument. For example, questioning the credentials of a scientist who presents evidence that contradicts your argument.
4. Attacking an opponent’s personal life: This is another form of abusive ad hominem, where an individual attacks his/her opponent’s personal life to discredit his/her argument. For example, bringing up an opponent’s marital problems or criminal history to discredit his/her argument is a case in point.

Literary Examples of Logical Fallacy of Ad Hominem

• To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

The character, Bob Ewell, uses an ad hominem attack to discredit Atticus Finch, the lawyer, involved in defending Tom Robinson, an African American accused of rape. Bob Ewell accuses Atticus of being a “nigger-lover” and suggests that he is not fit to defend a white man in court. This attack aims at Atticus’ character rather than his argument. Therefore, it means to discredit him in the eyes of the jury.

• Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare

In this play, Brutus uses ad hominem attacks to turn the Roman people against Julius Caesar. He suggests that Caesar is a tyrant who is only interested in his own power and that he is not fit to rule Rome. These attacks aim at discrediting Caesar’s character rather than his policies or actions. Therefore, they meantto convince the people that he must be overthrown.

• The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer

 In this collection of tales, the character of the Pardoner uses ad hominem attacks to discredit the other pilgrims. He accuses them of being sinful and hypocritical and suggests that they are not worthy of respect or admiration. These attacks aim to discredit the other characters’ character rather than their stories or arguments. Therefore, they mean to elevate the Pardoner’s own status as a moral authority.

• The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

 In this novel, the character of Pap uses ad hominem attacks to discredit Huck’s decision to go to school and learn to read. He suggests that education is not worth pursuing and that Huck is not smart enough to succeed in school. These attacks aim to discredit Huck’s character and abilities rather than his arguments or choices. Therefore, they mean to keep him under Pap’s control.

• The Tragedy of Macbeth by William Shakespeare

In this play, Lady Macbeth uses ad hominem attacks to convince Macbeth to kill King Duncan. She suggests that he is not manly enough to take action and that he will be seen as weak if he does not act. These attacks aim to discredit Macbeth’s character rather than his reasoning or morals. Therefore, they mean to persuade him to take the violent action she desires.

• “1964 Republican National Convention Speech” by Barry Goldwater

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue… And let me further remind you that, unlike Senator Goldwater, Lyndon Johnson has never had the satisfaction of winning a war.”

In this quote, Goldwater attacks Johnson’s character by suggesting that he has never won a war and therefore is not fit to lead the country.

How to Remove Logical Fallacy of Ad Hominem From Your Writing

Removing ad hominems from writing is an important step in creating a more effective and persuasive argument. Here are some steps you can take to remove ad hominems from your writing:

1. Identify ad hominems in your writing: Look for any personal attacks, insults, or derogatory language directed at the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
2. Evaluate the relevance of the ad hominems: Determine whether the personal attacks are relevant to the argument. If they are not, remove them from your writing.
3. Reframe the argument: Instead of attacking the person making the argument, focus on the substance of the argument itself. Use logic, evidence, and facts to support your position.
4. Avoid emotional language: Emotions can run high when discussing important topics, but it is essential to keep a level head and avoid using emotional language. Stick to the facts and avoid using language perceived as hostile or inflammatory.
5. Stay on topic: It is important to stay on topic and not get sidetracked by personal attacks or irrelevant information. Focus on the central argument and address it respectfully and constructively.

Harms of Using Logical Fallacy of Ad Hominem

1. Discredit Your Position: Using ad hominem attacks in a debate or discussion undermines the credibility of the argument and the person making the attack.
2. Cause Conflict: Using ad hominem attacks can also lead to a breakdown in communication and cause unnecessary conflict and hostility.
3. Create Confusion: When people engage in personal attacks, they often become defensive, and the conversation becomes less about finding a solution or common ground and more about winning an argument.

Literary Device of Ad Hominem in Literary Theory

1. Reader Response Theory: Reader response theory suggests that a reader’s personal experiences and biases influence their interpretation of a text. In this sense, a reader who engages in ad hominem attacks on an author or character may be allowing their personal biases to cloud their interpretation of the text.
2. Psychoanalytic Theory: Psychoanalytic theory suggests that unconscious desires and conflicts influence our behavior and perceptions. In this sense, a character who engages in ad hominem attacks may be doing so because of their own unconscious motivations and desires.
3. Feminist Theory: Feminist theory examines the role of gender in literature and society. In this sense, ad hominem attacks on a female author or character may be considered a manifestation of sexist attitudes and biases.
4. Postcolonial Theory: Postcolonial theory examines the cultural, social, and political implications of colonialism and imperialism. In this sense, ad hominem attacks on an author or character from a particular cultural or ethnic group may be considered a manifestation of cultural imperialism or colonialism.

Suggested Readings

Bok, Sissela. Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. Vintage Books, 1999.

Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy. Translated by John Cottingham, Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Hansen, Chad. A Guide to Fallacies in the Use of Reason. University of Kansas Press, 1989. Tindale, Christopher W. Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge University Press, 2007.