Literary
Terms
Ad Hominem
Ad
hominem is a Latin word that means “against the man.” As the name suggests, it
is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent, to
undermine him instead of his arguments. There are cases in which, whether
consciously or unconsciously, people start to question the opponent or his
personal associations, rather than evaluating the soundness and validity of the
argument that he presents.
Arguers
who are not familiar with the principles of making logical arguments commonly
end up saying something that would draw the audience’s attention to the
distasteful characteristics of the individual. Such people use this fallacy as
a tool to deceive their audiences. Making such a blatant personal comment
against somebody makes it hard for people to believe it isn’t true. Typically,
even the arguer himself believes that such personal traits or circumstances are
not enough to dispose of an individual’s opinion or argument. However, if
looked at rationally, such arguments – even if true – never provide a valid
reason to disregard someone’s criticism.
Ad
hominem is a logical fallacy which is used very often in the media, politics,
and real-life debate.
A
writer’s background is considered to be a very important factor when it comes
to judging his work. A book written on a particular subject in history will be
perceived differently, keeping in mind the background of the author. Therefore,
it is important to understand that a writer’s traits and circumstances have a
pivotal role to play in his feelings, thinking and the construction of his
arguments.
To
put it simply, the considerations regarding the use of ad hominem can explain
certain arguments and the motives behind them better. Nevertheless, such
considerations are not enough on their own to evaluate an individual’s opinion
and are certainly not sufficient to disregard them as false or invalid.
The
fact is that ad hominem is a kind of fallacy that leaves a great impression on
the audience’s mind. It is an argumentative flaw that is hard to spot in our
daily lives. Although the personal attack that has been made on the opponent
might not have even a speck of truth in it, it somehow makes the audience
biased. Ironically, despite being flawed, ad hominem has an amazing power of
persuasion.
The
worst thing about using ad hominem purposely is that an opponent insults you
publicly. Whenever this happens to you, you must recover from the humiliation
and then point out the false connection in the argument, which was used as a
trap for the audience. Moreover, the dilemma with ad hominem is that, once it
has been used against a person, it smears his reputation. Once somebody makes
such a judgmental argument about someone, the audience instead of evaluating it
on logical grounds takes it to be true.
Examples
1
In a
debate, Ruth and Sara are discussing whether or not aliens exist. Ruth says,
“Earth is only one of countless planets in the universe. Since many of those
planets are similar to Earth, it’s almost ignorant to assume there are no alien
races of significant advancement.” Sara
replies, “Didn’t you get a D in Astronomy?” Her defense ignores Ruth’s logic
completely. Instead, it casts doubt on Ruth’s intelligence and knowledge. That might seem like a good point, since
astronomy is related to his point, but it’s still an ad hominem error because
the only thing that really matters logically is exactly what Ruth said, not his
grades.
2
You
are utterly hopeless. Can’t you just make a simple tea for the guests?
3
Yeah
seriously! His wealth does not support his credentials to be a good orator.
4
We
must not credit somebody being a good mechanic because he has been with good
mechanics during childhood.
5
If
you seriously want to be her friend, don’t talk to me and just look at her
face. How can you be her friend?
6
Do
you remember the time you took my glasses? I know you told me that you didn’t
steal it but what’s to say it won’t happen again, eh?
7
The
most popular literary work to illustrate Ad Hominem is the play The Crucible,
by Arthur Miller, about the Salem witch-trials. In this play, several young
girls accuse other members of the community of witchcraft. They use personal
insults and irrelevant information about each other’s home lives to influence
public opinion.
A court
official (Cheever) tells the judge, Danforth, that Proctor (who defends the
accused townspeople) works on Sunday instead of attending church. The “Mr.
Parris” they mention is the pastor of the church:
Proctor:
I—I have no love for Mr. Parris. It is no secret. But God, surely, do I love.
Cheever:
He plow on Sunday, sir.
Danforth:
Plow on Sunday!
Cheever:
I think it be evidence, John. I am an official of the court. I cannot keep it.
Proctor:
I—I have once or twice plowed on Sunday. I have three children, sir, and until
last year my land give little.
In
this scene, the honesty of the character John Proctor is questioned not because
his story was inconsistent, but because he plows on Sunday, casting a shadow of
doubt on his Christian piety. Even though the judge continues to say that he
“judges nothing,” he also goes on to disregard Proctor’s testimony and says
that he has no reason to doubt the accusations being made by the girls. Of course,
Cheever has used another tricky technique here at the same time, by making the
Judge afraid that if he accepts Proctor’s testimony, he (the judge) might look
like a bad Christian
Types of Ad Hominem
a.
Abusive
This
variety of ad hominem is a direct “character assassination” of the opponent,
undermining their credibility (believability) and status to the audience. Implying that the speaker is insane, immoral,
or uneducated is common. The idea of
course, is that if a person is insane, evil, stupid, or ignorant, it is
sensible not to believe them. However,
if you are going to argue against them, you need to address their arguments!
b.
Circumstantial
This
type of ad hominem is similar, but it focuses on the situation surrounding the
subject in order to create doubt. For example, Megan wants to go at an
expensive café for dinner, but Laura complains of the overpriced menu. A
circumstantial argument from Megan would be: “Well, it’s not my fault that
you’re broke.” Laura’s funds may give her a reason for the complaining, but
they may not; Laura could be complaining that the food isn’t good enough to
justify its prices, in which case, Megan is making an ad hominem circumstantial
attack rather than arguing with Laura’s reasoning.
c.
Tu quoque
Tu
quoque is Latin for “You, too,” and is the equivalent of deflecting a point—or
an ad hominem attack—back onto its source. When Laura complains of the overpriced
item menus at the café, Megan could say, “You didn’t seem to mind charging me
twenty bucks for those seashell earrings you made!” Rather than perhaps
defending the quality of the ingredients or the rules for pricing, she attacks
Laura for overcharging her for jewelry.
d.
Poisoning the Well
This
ad hominem attack involves saying something to make people prejudiced against
your opponent’s position, without addressing the argument. Gerald and Mandy are
discussing wedding reception venues; Gerald wants it to be at his aunt’s
vineyard, and Mandy wants it to be on the beach. Mandy could say, “But this
marriage isn’t for that bimbo,” which undermines the vineyard without
addressing it. Likewise, Gerald could say, “Do you just want a big hippie
party, instead of a real reception?” which insults the location of the beach by
associating it with hippies.
Comments