10.3: Arguments Against the Person

We commit the fallacy of an argument against a person whenever we launch an irrelevant attack on that person, rather than on their position or argument. The Latin name for this fallacy, ad hominem, is still in common use, so we will use it too. This is one type of the fallacy of irrelevant reason, since when we attack a person, we shift our focus from issues that are relevant to the conclusion to another issue that is not relevant; in this case, we shift our focus to the person we are attacking. If we disagree with a position, or if an argument has a conclusion we reject, it is perfectly reasonable to try to show that the position is false or that the argument is flawed. But when we can’t see a way to do this, it may be tempting to instead attack the person who holds the position, or who gave the argument.

This diverts attention from the real issue, shifting the focus elsewhere, so that people won’t notice the weakness of the case. And one of the most effective ways to shift the focus is to attack the other person in a way that triggers various emotions like anger, because when we are angry or otherwise negatively emotionally aroused, it is difficult to remain focused on the real issue.

The simplest way attack a person is to simply throw terms of abuse at them. These range from ‘fool’ or ‘idiot’ to derogatory labels based on the person’s race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation. We are all familiar with cases where discussion or debate degenerates into name calling.

For example, debate over affirmative action programs is often conducted in a way that stays focused on the real issues, but attacks on one’s opponent are not uncommon here. Champions of affirmative action are sometimes accused of being bleeding heart liberals who really want to discriminate against white males, while opponents of affirmative action are sometimes accused of being rednecks or bigots who only want to hold on to a situation that benefits them at the expense of others.

One label has undergone an interesting seesawing of fortune; several decades ago, many considered it a good thing to be a liberal. The term originally signified those who favored liberties and freedoms (for example, freedom of religion). But in the last century, partly due to Roosevelt’s New Deal, many people came to see liberals as champions of a “tax and spend” approach to government. Now we are in a political era where values are again shifting, and those same policies and principles exemplified by the term ‘liberal’ under Roosevelt are again being seen in a positive light by many. This was a long way to go to point out that context matters a lot. Depending on the time and place, a term or label may move from being a neutral description, to a slur or insult, and back again.

It is also possible to attack someone by pointing out that they are associated with a group we don’t like. Such attempts to show guilt by association commit the ad hominem fallacy if they take the place of a reasonable examination of the other person’s argument or views.

A subtler version of the ad hominem fallacy occurs when we ignore someone else’s argument for a given position and instead charge that they only favor the position because it is in their self-interest to do so. The following dialogue represents a typical instance:

Burt: Well, anyway, there you have my arguments for opposing gun control laws.

Ali: Well, all those fancy statistics and detailed arguments sound good. But when you get right down to it, you really oppose gun control because you sell guns, and you’d lose a bundle if any laws were passed that cut back on their sales.

Here Ali has simply ignored Burt’s arguments for his position and attacked Burt instead.

In some cases, attacks on a person may be hard to resist. Suppose, for example, that someone gives us a good argument, based on lots of statistics, that we should wear seat belts. Later we learn that they always ride their motorcycle without a helmet. This does show some inconsistency, and perhaps even hypocrisy, in their behavior. But it doesn’t show that their argument for wearing seat belts is bad. Not all “attacks” on a person are irrelevant. If someone purports to be a good source of information about something, it is perfectly reasonable to expose them if they really aren’t a good source.

Example 1: If someone purports to be a highly trained expert in some field (e.g., they claim to have a medical degree) when in fact they lack the training they claim to have, this is worth noting, and it does damage their credibility.

Example 2: If a source has repeatedly been incorrect, for example if a tabloid website has frequently been wrong in its claims about Hollywood stars, then it is not a good source of information. Here it is relevant to point out that the source has a poor track record, since that should affect our assessment of their current claims.

Example 3: If an eyewitness to a murder is testifying in court, it is reasonable to offer testimony to show that their eyesight is poor, their memory faulty, or that they have a reason to lie.

Example 4: If a person or group has repeatedly shown biases or prejudice about certain issues or against other groups, it is unwise to trust them when they make further claims about those issues or groups. When it became clear during the O. J. Simpson trial that the policeman Mark Furhman had repeatedly used racial slurs, his testimony came into serious doubt.

We only commit the ad hominem fallacy if we ignore someone’s arguments or reasons and instead attack them. Of course, life is short, so if someone is known to be biased or unreliable, that does justify spending our time doing better things than thinking about their argument. But it does not justify concluding that their argument is no good.

Exercises

Say whether each of the following passages contains an ad hominem fallacy. If it does, explain how the fallacy is committed and how an attack on the argument, rather than on the arguer, might proceed.

1. You just think the school should adopt a pass/fail grading system so you won’t have a bunch of Ds.
2. Well, of course professors here can cite all sorts of studies and give all sorts of arguments that they deserve a pay increase. After all, they are trained to do that stuff. But at the end of the day, they are just like the rest of us, looking out for old number one.
3. You know the Pope’s arguments against birth control. But, you know, I say if you don’t play the game, don’t try to make the rules (Dick Gregory).
4. The witness of the defense is hard to take seriously. He testifies as an “expert witness” for the defense in over a hundred trials a year, and they always pay him big bucks to do it.
5. Who are you to tell me not to smoke a little dope. You knock off nine or ten beers a day “to relax.”
6. Look, I hear all your arguments that abortion is wrong. But you’re a man, and you can’t be expected to understand why a woman has a right to choose what to do with her own body.