Ad Hominem: Direct
A logical fallacy where an argument is attacked by discrediting the character of the person making it, rather than addressing the argument itself. Distinguishing fallacious from legitimate uses is crucial because ad hominem arguments can be powerful and hard to counter.
THE IDEA
10 Ad Hominem : Direct
George Wrisley
Richard Nixon’s statements on foreign affairs policies in relation to China are untrustworthy because he was forced to resign during the Watergate scandal.
Douglas Walton, Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation
Related forms are ad hominem: bias (Chapter 8), ad hominem: circumstantial (Chapter 9), and ad hominem: tu quoque (Chapter 11).
An ad hominem argument is an argument "to," "toward," or "against" the person. The direct variety of the ad hominem goes directly against the person, particularly in regard to some aspect of character, as opposed to indirectly by, for example, pointing out some pragmatic inconsistency between a person’s actions and various commitments (as in the ad hominem: circumstantial). As with all of the ad hominem argument subtypes, the ad hominem: direct occurs in the context of some kind of dialogue or exchange, real (face to face) or imagined (in dialogue with a text, for example). That is, an ad hominem occurs in response (the respondent) to the stated argument/position of another person (the proponent). Instead of addressing the argument/position of the proponent, the respondent addresses the proponent’s character in such a way that his credibility is questioned in order to either question or refute his argument/position.
The central complication when dealing with the ad hominem: direct is that while ad hominem arguments are often fallacious, they are also often legitimate. Thus, a main question becomes: How do we differentiate the fallacious from the legitimate instances of ad hominem: direct arguments? This is particularly important because of how powerful ad hominem arguments can be in regard to the proponent’s ability to support her position in a meaningful way. Fallacious uses of the ad hominem argument type are pernicious, in part, because of how difficult it can be to respond to them in an effective way. Think about how hard it can be for someone to recover from accusations that paint her as a bad person or a hypocrite.
The basic form of the fallacy looks like this:
- Proponent: Gives argument/position x.
- Respondent: Questions/attempts to refute position x, not by attacking x, but by attacking the Proponent’s character.
- Respondent: Concludes that the proponent’s argument/position x is less credible/refuted. (Walton [2006], 123)
To distinguish a fallacious character attack from a relevant challenge to credibility, ask:
- How well justified are the allegations made against the proponent’s person?
- Are the details about the proponent’s person relevant to the argument/position in question or the dialogical context?
- Is the conclusion of the respondent’s ad hominem argument that the proponent’s argument/position should be rejected outright, or is the conclusion merely that the proponent should be viewed with less credibility as a supporter of the original argument/position x? (Walton [2006], 123)
The excerpt ends before the further examples. In applying these questions, examine what the person actually argued as well as the character allegation.
When to use it
Evaluating political debates where candidates attack each other's character rather than policies.
Analyzing courtroom arguments where a lawyer discredits a witness's testimony by highlighting past misconduct.
Assessing online discussions where participants dismiss arguments by insulting the person's intelligence or motives.
Distinguishing valid critiques of a source’s credibility from fallacious ad hominem attacks in academic or journalistic contexts.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Nixon's China Policy
Richard Nixon’s statements on foreign affairs policies in relation to China are untrustworthy because he was forced to resign during the Watergate scandal. This directly attacks Nixon’s character rather than evaluating the merits of his policy proposals.
Climate Scientist's Credibility
A climate scientist presents evidence for reducing emissions. A critic dismisses the evidence by calling the scientist an unpleasant person. Unless that allegation bears on the reliability of the evidence or testimony, it gives no reason to reject the argument.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a recent argument you observed or participated in. Was an ad hominem attack used? If so, was it fallacious or legitimate? Apply the three critical questions.
How might the same attack on a person's character be fallacious in one context but legitimate in another? Provide an example.
Why is it so difficult to recover from an ad hominem attack, even when it is fallacious?
Often confused with
References
- Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation — Douglas Walton (2006)
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Bad Arguments 100 of the Most Important Fallacies in Western Philosophy (Steven Barbone, Michael Bruce)