Y Safle

When discussing mistakes we make when thinking, at some point or another someone will mention the list of logical fallacies that can be made, using their Latin names. Despite the fact that we use much less Latin these days then previous generations, we continue to use Latin names - perhaps because they make it sound like we know what we are talking about, or maybe in the hope that no-one else will know what we are talking about!

But one Latin term has been so common in disputations, that most people think they know what it means. This term is “ad hominem”, and if someone feels they are being unfairly and maliciously attacked in an argument, accusations of ad hominem arguments will fly.

But what does argumentum ad hominem actually mean? And do we use the term correctly? how do we avoid allowing ad hominem arguments from affecting our thinking?

Literally “argumentum ad hominem” is an argument [carried] to the man. An argument is ad hominem if, instead of arguing against the premises or logic being presented, it attacks the character or beliefs of the person who presented an argument or point of view.

A classic example of an ad hominem can be found in the comments on this blog. In my article on Capital Punishment, I wrote an article on a controversial subject taking a very specific line of argument. A commentator (David) took exception to what I had written, but rather than attempting to refute the line of thought, he instead objected that it was “unfair” that I should argue in that manner because I am a Christian.

Now David argued that his line was not ad hominem, but this is exactly what an ad hominem argument is.

A: I believe that Capital Punishment is wrong because inasmuch as we make a choice to kill for vengeful reasons and self interest, we are no better than the criminal who kills for vengeful reasons and self interest.

B: You are a Christian and it is unfair that you make that argument.

Now the problem with the ad hominem line is that it does not refute the original argument, but it distracts from it. Ad hominem argument is a fallacy of distraction. I could have argued that it is entirely appropriate that Christians take a world view that David saw as deterministic, based perhaps on the philosophy of Jonathan Edwards.

But then we would be discussing Christian approaches to determinism (and before you know it, Calvinism and predestination) rather than capital punishment. The argument would be unrefuted, but entirely forgotten.

So an ad hominem line is a dangerous fallacy - because it distracts.

Note however, that what many people mean by an ad hominem argument is more approprioately called an “abusive ad hominem”.

For instance, on another forum in the last month or so, I was in disputation with an individual over some point of Christian doctrine. I expressed my belief in the inerrancy of scripture, and the sufficiency of the Bible, and my faith In Jesus Christ but then challenged the view of the other party on separationism. His reply:

“You are a classic liberal”, and “You lie when the truth will not help your position!” (He later apologised for calling me a liar, but never managed to see me as anything but a theological liberal!)

This was the abusive ad hominem. An attack on the integrity and character of the other party in the argument. It is not only distracting and fallacious, but it also raises the temperature of debate and makes constructive progress almost impossible.

People spot an abusive ad hominem easily enough, and such lines can be rightly ignored. But spotting other ad hominem arguments is also important. If we start answering ad hominem lines, then our original arguments get forgotten.

Don’t let people distract you with ad hominem lines. Argue a case on its own merits, not on the merits of the person who holds the argument.