The Ad Hominem Fallacy
Summary
TLDRThe video script delves into the fallacy of 'Ad Hominem,' illustrating how personal attacks distract from the merit of an argument. It distinguishes between valid and invalid ad hominem attacks, using examples like Hitler's racial theories and Mother Teresa's charity advocacy. The script emphasizes evaluating arguments based on their logic and truth, not the character of the person presenting them, and discusses reconstructing arguments to identify implicit assumptions that may affect their validity.
Takeaways
- 📚 Ad Hominem is a fallacy that involves rejecting an argument based on personal characteristics of the person making the argument rather than the argument's merits.
- 🗣️ The term 'Ad Hominem' comes from Latin, meaning 'to the man', and it is used to criticize the person instead of the claim they are making.
- 🚫 The abusive form of Ad Hominem is a blatant fallacy where an argument is dismissed due to negative qualities attributed to the person making it, such as 'Your argument is bad because you suck'.
- ❌ Even if negative personal attributes are true, they are irrelevant to the validity of an argument, which should be judged on its logical structure and truth of its premises.
- 📖 The script uses Adolf Hitler's arguments as an example to illustrate that rejecting an argument based on the person's character is a fallacy, not a valid critique of the argument itself.
- 👩🏫 It's important to assess arguments based on whether they satisfy the truth condition (are the premises true and plausible?) and the logic condition (is the argument valid or strong?).
- 🔍 When evaluating arguments, it's crucial to look for implicit background assumptions that might make a weak argument valid or strong.
- 🔄 The script points out that what makes an argument an Ad Hominem fallacy is not the criticism or praise of a person, but the confusion between judging a person and judging an argument.
- 🤔 The value of discussing hard cases, like Hitler's arguments, is to understand why it's a mistake to infer the quality of an argument from the character of the person making it.
- ⚖️ In certain contexts, such as when an argument relies on the testimony of an individual, facts about the person's character can be relevant and not constitute an Ad Hominem fallacy.
Q & A
What is the meaning of 'Ad Hominem' and its origin?
-Ad Hominem is a term derived from Latin, meaning 'to the man' or 'to the person'. It refers to a fallacy where an argument is rejected based on a dislike for the person making the argument, rather than the argument's content.
What is the difference between criticism of a person and criticism of a claim or argument?
-Criticism of a person is about the individual's qualities or character, while criticism of a claim or argument focuses on the validity, logic, or truth of the statement being made. Ad Hominem fallacy occurs when the former is mistakenly used to discredit the latter.
Can you explain the 'abusive ad hominem' fallacy with an example?
-The 'abusive ad hominem' fallacy is a direct attack on the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself. An example would be dismissing someone's argument by saying, 'Your argument is bad because you suck,' which is irrelevant to the argument's validity.
How does the ad hominem fallacy relate to Adolf Hitler's arguments on race?
-The script uses Hitler's arguments as an example to illustrate that rejecting an argument based on the person's negative characteristics, such as being a mass murderer, is a fallacy. The argument's validity should be based on its logical soundness and truth, not the person's character.
What is the difference between a valid and a strong argument in the context of the ad hominem fallacy?
-A valid argument is one where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, while a strong argument is one where the premises are not only true but also highly probable. The ad hominem fallacy occurs when the argument's strength or validity is assumed based on the person's characteristics rather than the argument's logical structure.
Why is it a mistake to accept or reject an argument solely based on the arguer's moral character?
-Accepting or rejecting an argument based solely on the arguer's moral character is a mistake because it confuses the evaluation of a person with the evaluation of an argument. The argument's merit should be determined by its logical structure and the truth of its premises, not the personal qualities of the person presenting it.
What are the two basic questions to ask when assessing the validity of an argument?
-The two basic questions to ask when assessing an argument's validity are: 1) Are all the premises true and plausible? and 2) Is the argument valid or strong? If the answer to either is no, then the argument is considered bad.
How can background assumptions affect the evaluation of an argument's validity?
-Background assumptions can significantly affect the evaluation of an argument's validity. An argument might appear weak without them, but when these assumptions are made explicit, they can make the argument strong or valid. It's important to identify and consider these assumptions before evaluating an argument.
What is the role of context in determining whether an ad hominem fallacy has been committed?
-Context plays a crucial role in determining if an ad hominem fallacy has been committed. In some cases, such as when an argument relies on the testimony of a person, facts about the person's character can be relevant to the argument's validity. The context helps to determine if the personal characteristics are appropriately connected to the argument's premises.
Why do some people find it tempting to commit the ad hominem fallacy, even when they understand it's a fallacy?
-People might find it tempting to commit the ad hominem fallacy because it's a natural human tendency to associate a person's character with the quality of their ideas or arguments. This cognitive bias can make it difficult to separate the evaluation of a person from the evaluation of their arguments, even when one is aware of the logical fallacy.
Outlines
📚 Understanding the Ad Hominem Fallacy
The paragraph introduces the concept of 'Ad Hominem' fallacy, a logical fallacy where an argument is rejected based on the characteristics of the person presenting it rather than its content. It explains that this fallacy is a mistake because the validity of an argument should be based on its logical soundness and the truth of its premises, not the personal qualities of the arguer. The paragraph distinguishes between different types of ad hominem fallacies, focusing on the 'abusive ad hominem', where an argument is dismissed due to an attack on the person's character. Examples are provided to illustrate how this fallacy operates, including a controversial one involving Adolf Hitler's racial arguments, to demonstrate that even if true, negative facts about a person do not automatically discredit their arguments. The importance of evaluating arguments based on their logical structure and the truth of their premises is emphasized.
🔍 Analyzing Ad Hominem with Logical Reconstruction
This paragraph delves into the analysis of ad hominem fallacies by considering the logical structure of arguments. It suggests that arguments are often presented with implicit assumptions that need to be made explicit to evaluate their validity. The paragraph uses the example of Hitler's racial arguments to show how adding a conditional premise can change the logical strength of an argument. It argues that the fallacy lies not in the truth of the premises but in the assumption that the arguer's character flaws necessarily discredit their arguments. The paragraph also discusses the importance of not confusing the evaluation of a person with the evaluation of their argument, highlighting that the moral character of the arguer is irrelevant to the logical soundness of the argument. The concept of argument reconstruction is introduced as a tool for identifying and correcting logical weaknesses, and the paragraph concludes by emphasizing that the plausibility of an argument depends on its logical structure and the truth of its premises, not on the character of the person making the argument.
🤔 Contextualizing Ad Hominem Fallacies
The final paragraph addresses the complexity of identifying ad hominem fallacies in different contexts. It acknowledges that while ad hominem arguments typically rely on false premises about the arguer's characteristics affecting the argument's validity, there are exceptions where personal characteristics are relevant. The paragraph uses the example of a witness in a murder trial to illustrate that if the argument's validity hinges on the witness's testimony, then the witness's credibility and character become relevant. It points out that the fallacy is committed only when the premise about the person's characteristics is false, and in cases where such premises are true, the argument does not fall into the ad hominem fallacy. The paragraph concludes by suggesting that while there are no hard and fast rules, evaluating the context and the relevance of the arguer's characteristics to the argument's validity is crucial in determining whether an ad hominem fallacy has occurred.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Ad Hominem
💡Fallacy
💡Abusive Ad Hominem
💡Argument
💡Premise
💡Logic
💡Truth Condition
💡Moral Character
💡Implicit Background Assumptions
💡Standard Form
💡Conditional Claim
Highlights
Ad Hominem is a fallacy that involves rejecting an argument based on personal dislike for the person making it.
The term 'Ad Hominem' originates from Latin, meaning 'to the man', indicating a focus on the individual rather than their argument.
There are various types of ad hominem fallacies, with the 'abusive ad hominem' being the most obvious.
An example of an abusive ad hominem is dismissing an argument by attacking the person's character rather than the argument's logic.
The fallacy lies in mistaking personal criticism for criticism of a claim or argument.
Ad hominem fallacies are not valid because the person's character is irrelevant to the argument's validity.
An argument's weakness should be based on flawed premises or weak logic, not the person's personal qualities.
Even if negative traits about a person like Hitler are true, they don't automatically discredit their arguments.
The character of the arguer should not be confused with the evaluation of their argument.
Arguments should be assessed based on whether they satisfy the truth condition and the logic condition.
Premises must be true and plausible, and the argument must be valid or strong for it to be considered good.
Ad hominem arguments often rely on background assumptions that link the person's traits to the argument's validity.
Reconstruction of an argument involves making explicit any background assumptions that the argument relies on.
An argument might appear weak without considering the background assumptions that could strengthen it.
The plausibility of the background assumption is crucial in evaluating the reconstructed argument.
Ad hominem fallacies are committed when the argument relies on false premises about the person's traits affecting the argument.
However, not all premises of this type are false, and context is key in determining the validity of such arguments.
In cases where an argument relies solely on an individual's testimony, the person's character can be relevant.
The distinction between a fallacy and a valid argument involving personal traits depends on the truth of the background assumption.
Transcripts
SPEAKER 1: Ad Hominem is the name of a well known fallacy
type.
The name is derived from Latin, meaning to the man
or to the person.
It's the fallacy of rejecting a claim or an argument
given by someone because we don't like something
about the person.
We're mistaking criticism of a person
with criticism of a claim or an argument.
There are several different kinds of ad hominem fallacies.
In this video, we'll look at the most blatant form
of ad hominem, the abusive ad hominem.
Here's the most blatant form of this most blatant form
of ad hominem.
Your argument is bad because you suck.
This is a fallacy, because even if it's true that you suck,
your sucking isn't relevant to the goodness
or badness of your argument.
If your argument is bad, it's bad
because it has a dubious premise or it
has weak logic or some other necessary condition
for an argument to be good is violated.
Your sucking might be a reason not to like you personally,
but it's not a reason to reject your argument.
Here's a less blatant and more challenging example.
In his book, Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler
gives his account of race in history and famously
argues for the superiority of the Aryan race
and the inferiority of Jewish people.
Now, what if I said that we should reject
Hitler's arguments because he was
a mass murderer, or an insane megalomaniac,
or racist and anti-Semitic, or whatever other nasty thing
you want to say about him.
Let's say that these nasty things are all true.
Would these true facts about Hitler's character
give us good reason to reject Hitler's arguments
about racial differences?
And here's a case where a lot of people, maybe most people,
will say that this does give us good reason
to reject his arguments.
But if we accept that the ad hominem is indeed a fallacy,
that it's a mistake to reject an argument based solely
on qualities of the person giving the argument,
then we have to reject the argument given here.
This does not give us good reason
to rejected Hitler's arguments.
Now, I think Hitler's arguments are bad,
and I'm hoping that most people viewing this do too.
But the point is that they're not bad because Hitler was bad,
they're bad because they violate one or more
of the necessary conditions for an argument to be good.
This works the other way too, of course.
If Mother Theresa gives an argument
for giving charity and aid to the poor,
and we think Mother Theresa is a moral saint,
that shouldn't by itself count as a reason
to accept her argument for giving aid to the poor.
We wouldn't normally call this an ad hominem fallacy,
of course, since the term is usually
associated with criticism rather than praise.
But it's still a fallacy, and for the exact same reasons.
The problem isn't with criticism or praise,
it's with confusing the judging of a person
with the judging of an argument.
Now, let's look at this example from an argument analysis
perspective.
Let's ignore the fact that we've already
labeled it an ad hominem fallacy and ask ourselves
how we would normally assess the argument using
the tools we've learned so far.
Well, there are two basic questions to ask.
Does the argument satisfy the truth condition,
and does it satisfy the logic condition?
In other words, number one, are all the premises
true and plausible?
And number two, is the argument is valid or strong?
If the answer to either these is no, then the argument is bad.
Well, premise one is clearly true.
And premise two, while it uses a lot
of loaded and judgmental language,
would be regarded as true or at least defensible
by many people.
As the argument is given, the problem
isn't with the truth of the premises.
As given, the problem is with the logic.
If those two premises are true, the conclusion
doesn't follow, either with certainty
or with high probability.
In other words, the logic of the argument
is neither valid nor strong.
It's weak.
So one way to evaluate this argument
is simply to say that as given, it's bad
because the logic is weak.
And that's true.
But I want you to recall now the discussion about putting
arguments in standard form way back
in the first tutorial course on basic concepts and logic
and argumentation.
There, we emphasized that arguments are often
presented as incomplete and rely on background assumptions
to be interpreted correctly.
An argument might be weak as given,
but it might be relying on a background premise that
would make it strong or valid.
So in general, you're always encouraged
to look for implicit background assumptions like this
and only evaluate the argument after you've
reconstructed an argument.
That means making explicit any background assumptions
that the argument is relying on.
Only then should you go ahead and evaluate
whether the argument is good or bad.
So does this argument rely on a background premise that makes
the argument valid or strong?
Well, it's not hard to see what would be required
to make the logic work.
Let's shrink this up so we have more room to work.
You can often use a simple conditional claim,
if A then B, or a generalization,
like all A or B, to fix the logic of an argument.
So here you might add a conditional claim like this.
If Hitler was a murderous megalomaniacal anti-Semite,
then his arguments on racial superiority
are very likely bad.
If you add the very likely, then the argument is just strong.
If you take it out, then it's valid.
It's acceptable to add an assumed premise like this,
because it's clear that we're not putting
words in the arguer's mouth.
We have every reason to think that someone
advancing this argument would accept a premise like that.
So with this reconstruction, we fixed the logical problem.
It's not appropriate anymore to say that the argument is bad
because the logic is weak.
The logic is fine.
The problem now is with the plausibility
of that assumed premise.
If this argument is bad, it's bad
because this assumed premise is false or dubious.
Now, this is a hard case for some people,
because it's still very tempting to think
that this kind of character flaw is
relevant to assessing the goodness
of the arguments given.
But now I hope it's clear why this is a mistake.
An argument is a collection of claims
linked by relations of logical entailment or support.
The plausibility or implausibility
of those claims and the validity or invalidity
of the argument given isn't determined
by facts about the moral character of the person
asserting the argument.
I grant that in cases like this, it's
tempting to make this slide from criticism of a person
to criticism of an argument.
But that's a mistake.
The value of discussing a hard case like this
is that if you can see the fallacy here, then
you've probably understood the essence of the fallacy.
Facts about someone's moral character by themselves
don't make it any more or less likely
that their arguments are good or bad.
So our final assessment is that this is a bad argument.
And it's bad because the background assumption
necessary to make the argument valid or strong
is false or dubious, so it violates the truth condition
as we've defined that term.
This might seem like a long-winded way
of saying that the argument is fallacious.
But the point of this discussion is to show why it's a fallacy.
Why ad hominems in general are fallacies,
by showing how the argument violates
one of the basic conditions for an argument to be good.
To sum up, we can say a few things in general
about ad hominems.
When you reconstruct them, ad hominem arguments
typically rely on the following types of assumed premise.
Almost any claim that a person makes
about topic X is probably false because of some feature
of that person, or almost any argument
that a person gives about X is probably bad
because of some feature of that person.
If you include the terms in brackets,
you get a more qualified version of the premise
that would make the argument strong rather than valid.
Now, the characterization given here
is somewhat broader than your typical abusive ad hominem.
You get your typical ad hominem when
you base your objection on a criticism
of someone's character.
But this broader characterization
is helpful, because it also covers ad hominem cases that
don't necessarily involve insulting a person
or criticizing their character, as we'll
see in the next couple of tutorials.
Finally, I want to direct your attention
to the "whenever" in that final statement on the bottom.
You commit an ad hominem fallacy when
you give an argument that relies on premises of this type,
but it's only a fallacy if the premise is false.
I want to point this out, because as most textbooks will
tell you, premises of this type aren't always false.
And in these cases, the arguments
don't commit the ad hominem fallacy.
Here's an example.
Johnny is on the witness stand testifying against Mrs. Jones
in a murder case.
He says that he saw Mrs. Jones stab her husband.
The argument for her guilt relies solely on his testimony.
Now, in a case like this, when argument relies
on trusting someone's testimony, facts
about a person's character and motives
are relevant to assessing the argument.
It's true that our Johnny is a known liar,
and he has a motive to lie in this case.
Maybe he himself is a suspect in the murder.
Then it makes perfect sense to reject
an argument that is based solely on Johnny's testimony.
So while this argument for rejecting Johnny's testimony
does rely on claims about Johnny's character,
it doesn't commit the ad hominem fallacy.
Because in this case, the claim about his character
is relevant to assessing the argument.
This example shows why we needed to qualify
our characterization of the ad hominem in previous slide.
Let's go back to that.
We commit the ad hominem fallacy whenever
the argument relies on premises like these,
and the premises are false.
It's a fallacy because the argument violates the truth
condition.
But premises like these aren't always false.
In this case, the implicit assumption
we're making about Johnny's testimony
is that it's probably false.
At least we don't have good reason to think it's true,
because Johnny has a record of false testimony
and a motive to lie in this case.
And in this case, it's a perfectly reasonable
assumption.
So the argument doesn't violate the truth condition,
and consequently, doesn't commit the ad hominem fallacy.
Now, this discussion raises the question
of whether there are any general rules
for deciding when the relevant assumptions are true or false.
Well, to my knowledge, this is still
a subject of debate among experts in the philosophy
of argumentation.
But on a case by case basis, it's
not hard to spot exceptions to the fallacy.
So your best guide, I think, is to look at cases
as they come up, and ask yourself
whether the truth or plausibility
of a central premise in the argument
really does turn on facts about the arguer.
The best examples are arguments that rely solely
on the authority or testimony of an individual,
but context matters a great deal too.
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)