CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Ad Hominem [HD]

Summary

This video, presented by Paul Henne, introduces the ad hominem fallacy, which involves attacking the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. Using examples, such as arguments about pets and veganism, Henne explores four types of ad hominem fallacies: abusive, circumstantial, tu quoque (you also), and guilt by association. The video highlights why attacking someone's character or circumstances is fallacious and explains that personal attacks fail to engage with the actual substance of an argument.

Takeaways

• 🔍 The ad hominem fallacy involves attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
• ⚖️ The phrase 'ad hominem' means 'to the person,' which reflects the nature of the fallacy.
• 🐱 The example of Vlad's argument about cats vs. dogs illustrates how attacking someone's character (e.g., calling them a jerk) doesn't invalidate their argument.
• 🛑 The abusive ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone insults the person rather than addressing their argument.
• 📋 The circumstantial ad hominem fallacy happens when someone's argument is rejected because of their circumstances (e.g., accusing Catherine of bias because she works for a vegan company).
• 🔄 The tu quoque fallacy involves dismissing an argument because the person making it is hypocritical (e.g., Catherine eats meat but argues against it).
• 👥 Guilt by association is another form of ad hominem, where someone's argument is dismissed because of their association with someone with poor character (e.g., comparing Catherine to Hitler).
• 🤔 Despite someone's character or actions, their argument can still be valid, as personal flaws don't automatically make an argument false.
• 💡 An argument's validity depends on its premises and logical structure, not the person making it.
• 🎓 Philosophers acknowledge that there are situations where a person's standing might be relevant, but this requires careful consideration.

Q & A

What is the meaning of 'ad hominem'?

'Ad hominem' is a Latin phrase that means 'to the person.' It refers to a fallacy in which someone attacks the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself.

How is an ad hominem fallacy different from a valid critique?

In an ad hominem fallacy, the focus is on attacking the character or circumstances of the person making the argument instead of engaging with the argument's content. A valid critique, on the other hand, addresses the actual premises and conclusions of the argument.

What is the 'abusive' ad hominem fallacy?

The 'abusive' ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attacks the character of the person making the argument. For example, calling someone a 'jerk' to dismiss their argument without addressing the merits of the argument itself.

What is the 'circumstantial' ad hominem fallacy?

The 'circumstantial' ad hominem fallacy happens when someone dismisses an argument based on the circumstances or motives of the person making it. For instance, rejecting someone's argument because they work for a company that might benefit from the argument, without addressing the argument itself.

What is the 'tu quoque' ad hominem fallacy?

The 'tu quoque' fallacy, or 'you also,' occurs when someone dismisses an argument by pointing out that the person making the argument does not practice what they preach. This doesn't address the validity of the argument itself.

Can you explain the 'guilt by association' ad hominem fallacy?

In the 'guilt by association' ad hominem fallacy, a person rejects an argument by associating the person making the argument with someone of poor character. For example, dismissing someone's argument because it resembles an argument made by a notorious figure like Hitler.

Why is it a fallacy to attack a person's character instead of their argument?

It’s a fallacy because the character or circumstances of the person making the argument are usually irrelevant to the argument's validity. An argument should be judged based on its premises and logic, not on who is presenting it.

Why does the script use examples involving Vlad and Catherine?

The script uses these examples to illustrate different types of ad hominem fallacies in a concrete and relatable way. Vlad and Catherine represent typical scenarios where someone's character or circumstances are attacked instead of their argument.

What would be a valid way to critique Catherine’s argument about veganism?

A valid critique would engage with the content of her argument, such as challenging whether animals are truly sentient or questioning the premise that killing sentient beings for food is immoral.

How might philosophers further explore the ad hominem fallacy?

Philosophers may explore when a person’s character or standing is relevant to an argument. For example, in cases where someone's expertise or bias might affect the reliability of their argument, but this requires deeper discussion, which the script notes is beyond its scope.

Outlines

00:00

🎓 Introduction to Ad Hominem Fallacy

Paul Henne, a philosophy graduate student, introduces the concept of the 'ad hominem' fallacy, an informal fallacy that occurs when someone attacks the person making an argument instead of the argument itself. He explains that although the phrase 'ad hominem' may sound complex, it is a useful critical thinking tool. The term translates from Latin to 'to the person,' reflecting the nature of this fallacy. Henne sets the stage by using a simple example of a friend, Vlad, making an argument about cats being better pets than dogs, only for the argument to be dismissed by an attack on Vlad's character.

05:01

🐱 Example of Ad Hominem Fallacy

Henne expands on the example with Vlad's argument favoring cats as pets over dogs. He highlights that dismissing Vlad's argument by calling him a 'jerk' is not a valid rebuttal. Even if Vlad has poor character, this has no bearing on whether his argument is sound. The example is further exaggerated by suggesting that if Vlad were Hitler, dismissing his argument based on character alone would still be fallacious. Henne emphasizes that the reasoning is flawed because the standing of a person does not necessarily invalidate their argument.

⚠️ Abusive Ad Hominem Fallacy

Henne introduces the first subtype of the ad hominem fallacy, the 'abusive' form. In this form, the person making the argument is attacked personally, as in the case of calling Vlad a 'jerk' rather than addressing his actual argument. Henne explains that attacking someone's character does not necessarily mean their argument is wrong. Vlad's poor standing, in this case, doesn't affect whether his argument about cats being better domestic pets is valid.

🌱 Circumstantial Ad Hominem Fallacy

The second type of ad hominem fallacy, the 'circumstantial' fallacy, is introduced. Henne presents an example where his friend Catherine argues that killing animals for food is immoral. He responds by noting that Catherine works for a vegan food company, implying a conflict of interest. While Catherine's circumstance might suggest a motivation, this does not invalidate her argument. Henne points out that to refute her argument, he would need to address the argument itself, not her personal or professional situation.

🔄 Tu Quoque (You Also) Fallacy

Henne explains the 'tu quoque' fallacy, meaning 'you also.' This fallacy occurs when someone dismisses an argument by pointing out that the arguer does not act in accordance with their own conclusion. In Catherine's case, Henne suggests that because she eats meat, her argument for the immorality of killing animals is invalid. However, this response ignores the content of her argument and merely highlights her inconsistency, which does not affect the validity of her claim.

💀 Guilt by Association Fallacy

The final subtype of the ad hominem fallacy, 'guilt by association,' is discussed. Henne provides an example where Catherine’s argument is dismissed because Hitler, who was a vegetarian, might have made a similar argument. Associating Catherine's stance with a notorious figure like Hitler does not invalidate her argument about the morality of eating animals. Henne stresses that this form of ad hominem attacks the person's character through association rather than engaging with their actual argument.

🧠 The Core Problem with Ad Hominem Fallacies

Henne summarizes the common structure of the ad hominem fallacy across its various forms. The fallacy occurs when someone claims that an argument is invalid because the person making the argument has poor character or circumstances. This reasoning is fallacious because it ignores the argument itself. He notes that philosophers debate when a person’s standing might be relevant to an argument, but such discussions are beyond the scope of this video.

Keywords

💡Ad Hominem

Ad hominem is a type of informal fallacy where one attacks the character or circumstances of the person making an argument, rather than addressing the argument itself. In the video, the speaker uses examples like calling Vlad a 'jerk' to illustrate how ad hominem fallacies work. The focus is on discrediting the individual rather than the validity of their argument.

💡Fallacy

A fallacy is an error in reasoning that weakens an argument. The video centers around the ad hominem fallacy, breaking it down into four subtypes. Fallacies, such as attacking a person's character, lead to conclusions that are logically unsound. The video aims to teach viewers how to recognize and avoid these flawed reasoning tactics.

💡Argument

An argument in philosophy refers to a set of statements or premises that lead to a conclusion. In the video, Vlad's argument is that 'cats are better domestic pets than dogs,' and it serves as the basis for demonstrating how ad hominem fallacies ignore the argument's logic and focus on irrelevant personal attacks.

💡Abusive Ad Hominem

The abusive ad hominem fallacy involves directly attacking a person’s character in order to discredit their argument. The speaker gives the example of calling Vlad a 'total jerk' to show that attacking his personality does not negate the validity of his argument about pets.

💡Circumstantial Ad Hominem

Circumstantial ad hominem involves discrediting an argument based on the circumstances of the person making it, such as their background or affiliations. For example, in the video, the speaker dismisses Catherine’s argument for veganism because she works for a vegan food company, which suggests a conflict of interest but does not invalidate her reasoning.

💡Tu Quoque

Tu quoque, which means 'you also,' is a type of ad hominem fallacy that accuses the opponent of hypocrisy. In the video, this fallacy is illustrated when Catherine's argument is dismissed because she eats meat, even though her personal behavior does not necessarily undermine the logic of her argument about the immorality of killing animals for food.

💡Guilt by Association

Guilt by association is another form of ad hominem fallacy where one discredits an argument by linking the person making it to a negative or undesirable group or individual. The speaker uses an example where Catherine’s argument is dismissed because of a comparison to Hitler, who was a vegetarian, suggesting that since Hitler held a similar belief, her argument must be wrong.

💡Premise

A premise is a statement or proposition from which a conclusion is drawn. The video frequently references premises in constructing and deconstructing arguments, such as Vlad's premise that 'cats stay indoors' or Catherine's premise that 'animals are sentient beings,' showing how premises form the foundation of arguments.

💡Conclusion

A conclusion is the statement that follows from the premises of an argument. In the video, conclusions like 'cats are better pets than dogs' or 'killing animals for food is immoral' are examined. The video shows how ad hominem fallacies wrongly reject conclusions based on irrelevant attacks on the person making the argument.

💡Soundness

Soundness refers to the quality of an argument being both valid and having true premises. The video emphasizes that even if a person is of poor character, their argument can still be sound if their reasoning is valid and their premises are true. For instance, Vlad's argument about cats may be sound even if he is a 'jerk,' highlighting how personal attacks are irrelevant to the argument's soundness.

Highlights

Introduction to ad hominem as an informal fallacy, explaining its meaning as an attack against the person rather than the argument.

Example of a basic ad hominem fallacy: Discrediting Vlad's argument in favor of cats by calling him a jerk, without addressing his actual argument.

Clarification that attacking a person's character does not invalidate their argument's validity or soundness.

Premise of an ad hominem fallacy: Person P makes claim C, but their personal standing is attacked, leading to the false conclusion that claim C is invalid.

First type of ad hominem fallacy introduced: The abusive ad hominem, where personal insults are used instead of critiquing the argument.

Abusive ad hominem example: Calling Vlad a jerk and dismissing his claim about cats being better pets without evaluating the argument.

Second type of ad hominem fallacy: Circumstantial ad hominem, which focuses on the personal circumstances or possible motivations of the arguer instead of the argument.

Circumstantial ad hominem example: Dismissing Catherine's argument against killing animals because she works for a vegan food company.

Third type of ad hominem fallacy: Tu quoque, meaning 'you also,' where the speaker's hypocrisy is used as a reason to invalidate their argument.

Tu quoque example: Rejecting Catherine's argument against eating meat because she herself eats meat.

Fourth type of ad hominem fallacy: Guilt by association, where a person's argument is rejected because they are linked to someone with poor character.

Guilt by association example: Rejecting Catherine's argument by associating her with Hitler, a vegetarian, and concluding her stance is invalid.

Reminder that ad hominem fallacies occur when a person attacks the standing or character of the arguer instead of addressing the argument itself.

The general schema of ad hominem fallacies: Premise 1 is a claim, Premise 2 attacks the arguer's character or circumstances, and the conclusion incorrectly dismisses the claim.

Acknowledgment that there are debates about when a person's standing or character might be relevant to an argument, though these are saved for another discussion.

Transcripts

(intro music)

Hello. I'm Paul Henne,

and I'm a philosophy graduate student at Duke University.

And in this video, I'm gonna talk to you

about an informal fallacy called "ad hominem."

The phrase "ad hominem" might sound a bit bombastic,

but I assure you that it's an interesting

and useful critical thinking tool.

The latin phrase roughly means "to the person,"

and that's exactly what this fallacy is.

It's an attack against the person making the argument,

rather than an attack against the argument itself.

But let's see if we can pin down exactly

what this means by using an example.

Suppose that my friend Vlad made the following argument.

"Cats stay indoors and use a litter box,

"while dogs need to be walked

"and they have to run outside.

"Dogs are just more work.

"Therefore, cats are better domestic pets than dogs."

And then I reply, "Yeah, Vlad, but you're a total jerk."

So I disregard Vlad's argument

in favor of cats and decide to get a dog.

So let's think about my reply to Vlad's argument.

Maybe you think that my reply

is a completely good response to Vlad.

Suppose it's true that Vlad is a total jerk

and that I think no one should respect him

or listen to what he says.

I think Vlad has bad character in some way.

Therefore, his argument should be rejected.

So my response is good, right?

If this example doesn't convince you,

suppose that Vlad is really Hitler.

Hitler is a total jerk, so his conclusion is false,

or his argument isn't valid.

Does that sound good?

But let's represent my argument more generally,

to see why this reasoning is actually flawed.

Premise (1): Person P makes claim C,

"cats rule, dogs drool."

Premise (2): Person P has unsatisfactory

standing or circumstance

("Vlad is a total jerk.")

Conclusion: Therefore, claim C is false.

(it's false that cats are better domestic pets.)

While it might seem appealing in some cases

to say that this is a good argument form,

it would be generally wrong to think so.

The standing of the person making the argument

in most cases will be irrelevant to the validity

or the soundness of the argument.

And this is the misconception that I would

like to correct in this video.

Simply because Vlad is a total jerk

doesn't mean that his claim about cats

as better domestic pets is false.

He could be a complete jerk, yet still make a good argument

in favor of cats as domestic pets.

So let's look more closely at this fallacy

and at its four sub-types.

The first type of ad hominem fallacy is the abusive type.

To understand this type, let's return to our first example

where I called Vlad a jerk.

In this case, I've committed the abusive ad hominem fallacy.

In other words, I've attacked or abused

the person making the argument.

I haven't criticized the argument itself.

More specifically, I've abused Vlad

by simply attacking his character,

and then I equated his poor character with his argument.

This is a fallacy because, while the speaker, Vlad,

might not have good standing as I see him,

his argument may still be valid,

that is, cats might be better domestic pets.

Another type of Ad Hominem fallacy

is the circumstantial type.

Let's suppose that, when I'm talking to my friend Catherine,

she makes the following argument.

Premise (1): Animals are sentient beings.

Premise (2): If a being is sentient,

then killing it for food is immoral.

Conclusion: Therefore, killing animals for food is immoral.

Suppose then that I make the following statement in reply:

"Yeah, but Catherine, you work for a vegan food company.

"So your argument must be invalid."

In this case, I attack Catherine's circumstance,

that she works for a vegan food company,

instead of her argument.

Maybe I thought that she may have

a conflict of interest in making her argument,

that is, she wants to sell more vegan food products.

So she may be motivated to give

a faulty argument in favor of veganism.

Despite this potential conflict of interest,

my reply to her argument does not

effectively criticize her argument.

Although she works for a vegan food company

and may have a conflict of interest,

she may also have a perfectly valid and sound argument

supporting her conclusion that

killing animals for food is immoral.

If I wanted to effectively combat her argument,

I could maybe argue that animals aren't sentient,

or attack some other premise in her argument.

The third type of ad hominem fallacy is called "tu quoque,"

which roughly means "you also."

To explore this variation of the fallacy,

let's return to our previous example.

But suppose that my reply to Catherine's argument were

"Yeah, Catherine, but you eat meat.

"So you support the killing of animals for food.

"Your argument must be invalid."

In this case, I highlight Catherine's standing,

in that she doesn't act in a way

that's consistent with her conclusion.

I take her hypocrisy to invalidate her argument,

or at least to be a reason to reject her conclusion.

But again, my reply doesn't

effectively critique Catherine's argument.

I've not even mentioned any problems with the premises

or the conclusion at hand.

So despite her purported hypocrisy,

Catherine might have an effective argument

and just think that it's immoral that she eats meat.

The last type of ad hominem fallacy is

the guilt by assocation type.

Let's suppose now that my response

to Catherine's argument is this:

"Yeah, Catherine, but towards the end of his life,

"Hitler was a vegetarian.

"So, you might have made a similar argument.

"Since we'd reject his argument simply because he's Hitler,

"the most evil person in the world,

"we should obviously reject your argument, too."

What have I done in this case?

Well, I've associated Catherine

with a person of very poor character,

and then I've suggested that

it is a reason to reject Catherine's argument.

This, however, is fallacious,

because while Hitler was a terrible person

who committed some of the most atrocious acts in history,

he still may have made a valid and sound argument

about the morality of eating animals.

Moreover, Catherine's slight association with Hitler

does not invalidate her argument.

And by discussing her character,

I have not even addressed the issue at hand, veganism.

Let's look at the fallacy in our general schema.

The arguments that I've been making against Catherine

are of the following form.

Premise (1): Catherine claimed

that killing animals for food is immoral.

Premise (2): But she has poor standing or circumstances.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is not the case

that killing animals for food is immoral.

Have I committed an informal fallacy in these cases?

Yes!

I have not invalidated or even addressed

the subject of Catherine's argument.

Rather, I have personally attacked

her standing and character.

This is the ad hominem fallacy,

and you will see it often.

It is important to note, also, that philosophers

have many questions and concerns about this fallacy

and when a person's standing and character

are relevant to an argument.

But we will have to save these questions for another video.

Subtitles by the Amara.org community