The Ad Hominem Fallacy

Summary

The 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

00:00

📚 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.

05:00

🔍 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.

10:00

🤔 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.

Keywords

💡Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem is a Latin term meaning 'to the man' and refers to a fallacy in argumentation where an argument is rejected based on some characteristic or belief about the person presenting the argument, rather than the argument's merits. In the video, this concept is central as it is the main fallacy being discussed. The speaker explains that even if a person is disliked or has negative traits, it does not invalidate the logical structure of their argument.

💡Fallacy

A fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. The video script focuses on the 'ad hominem' fallacy, which is a specific type of error where the argument is dismissed due to an attack on the person making it. The script uses examples to illustrate how this fallacy is committed and why it is considered a logical mistake.

💡Abusive Ad Hominem

This is a subtype of ad hominem fallacy where the attack is personal and abusive, targeting the character of the individual rather than the content of their argument. The video provides the example 'Your argument is bad because you suck,' which is a clear case of abusive ad hominem, as it attacks the person rather than addressing the argument itself.

💡Argument

An argument in logic is a set of statements, or propositions, used to persuade or demonstrate that a conclusion is true. The video script dissects arguments to determine if they are good or bad based on their premises and logical structure. It emphasizes that the quality of an argument should be judged on its logical soundness and the truth of its premises, not on the person presenting it.

💡Premise

A premise is a statement or proposition that forms the basis of an argument. In the context of the video, the speaker discusses how the truth of premises is essential for an argument to be valid. The script also touches on the idea that arguments may rely on implicit premises that need to be made explicit to fully assess the argument's validity.

💡Logic

Logic refers to the study of the principles of correct reasoning. The video script uses the term to discuss the structure and validity of arguments. It explains that an argument's logic can be weak or strong, and that a good argument must have sound logic, meaning that the conclusion follows validly from the premises.

💡Truth Condition

The truth condition is a requirement for a good argument that all its premises must be true and plausible. The video script explains that if an argument's premises are not true, then the argument is bad, regardless of the person presenting it. This condition is part of what makes an argument valid or strong.

💡Moral Character

Moral character refers to the qualities or traits that define a person's moral and ethical disposition. The video script uses the concept to illustrate why ad hominem fallacies are problematic. It argues that a person's moral character should not be used to judge the validity of their arguments, as this confuses the evaluation of a person with the evaluation of an argument.

💡Implicit Background Assumptions

Implicit background assumptions are unstated beliefs or premises that underlie an argument and are necessary for it to make sense or be valid. The video script discusses how arguments are often incomplete and rely on such assumptions. It suggests that to properly evaluate an argument, one must make these assumptions explicit and assess whether they are true or plausible.

💡Standard Form

Standard form in logic refers to a way of representing arguments in a structured manner to make their logical structure clear. The video script mentions the importance of putting arguments into standard form to identify any implicit premises and to assess the argument's validity and strength more accurately.

💡Conditional Claim

A conditional claim is a type of statement that asserts that one proposition (the antecedent) implies another (the consequent). In the video, the speaker uses conditional claims to illustrate how adding a premise like 'if A then B' can strengthen the logic of an argument, making it valid or at least plausible.

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.