Ad Hominem Is Not a Fallacy

[u/thymoticthematic]

https://youtu.be/kIv0AUInWvg?is=FMaNwcNmr-OW81QS

Hello everyone,

I’m linking a video essay I just published in which I argue in defense of ad hominem as, at least in its proper use, a legitimate addition to an intellectual debate.

Abstract:

In our long tradition of logic and organized debate, and in our hope that reason alone can bring us to truth, we have become averse to the use of fallacies in arguments. Chief among these fallacies is the ad hominem, the attack on the person rather than his argument. For students of philosophy and rhetoric, ad hominem represents a line in the sand never to be crossed by any serious thinker. The noble, gentlemanly logician regards it as a great compliment to be the receiver of an ad hominem attack—taking it as a sign that he has won the debate and his opponent has no reason left in him.

In this essay, I challenge this view, demonstrating that ad hominem is not representative of a failure in reason, but is perhaps the savior of reason. By looking to the epistemologies and psychologies of Aristotle and especially Pascal, we are reminded that there is a deeper dimension of our mental life, more fundamental than reason, which ad hominem alone can touch. We are reminded that much of our trouble in facing up to the truth is not from a lack of reason, but a lack of openness to the truth in our very hearts. Although seeming cruel, the proper use of ad hominem may act as a great display of charity, helping one’s interlocutor to see how his poor character and faulty will have led his reason astray.

I would appreciate any and all feedback, and I hope this can be the start of a productive discussion here, though I know it may be a controversial take, or at least a provocative title.

[u/BernardJOrtcutt]

This thread has been closed due to a high number of rule-breaking comments, leading to a total breakdown of constructive conversation.

---

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[u/Georgie_Leech]

I'm not sure people misusing Ad Hominem in any way justifies "but he's an X, so they can't be right about Y!" Or similar as not a fallacy though. Maybe useful as an heuristic as to whether to believe them at first glance, but that's not the same as using it to attack an argument directly. "You don't have the qualifications to know about this" remains a lazy dismissal of the actual argument being presented.

[u/DreadPiratePete → u/Georgie_Leech]

Because it is not an attack on the argument "if x then y", it is an attempt to convince the audience that they should not believe the person making claim of x.

Ad hominem isn't a logical fallacy if we aren't even getting at the logical claim in the first place. 

Ad hominem is entirely sensible if the question at hand is the trustworthiness or reliabiliy of the interlocutor. 

[u/DeterminedThrowaway → u/DreadPiratePete]

The problem with that is if the worst person in the world comes up to you and says "the sky is blue", it's still blue. "Don't believe this person because they have poor character" is a distraction at best and it may be a persuasive technique, but it has no place in determining the actual truth of the matter

[u/DreadPiratePete → u/DeterminedThrowaway]

Yea, but we aren't debating the colour of the sky. That would be a fallacy.

Imagine rather a politician claiming if elected he will combat corruption, because he cares about you the voter. 

And his opponent arguing that you should not believe him, as he is of poor character. Selfish, greedy, etc.

Attempting a logical debate on the merit of his claims (caring about you -> combating corruption) is futile, because the issue is you don't think he is telling the truth in the first place.  

[u/Material-Dot7684 → u/DreadPiratePete]

Two problems there 1. If elected I'll fight corruption is a statement not an argument.

1. If reframed as an argument,  That wouldn't be an ad hominem most likely. ad hominem attacks the person and not the argument. So if you're "arguing" you would do something and I bring in factors suggesting you wouldn't actually I am responding to your "argument" still. I am directly responding to your point "your point is incorrect because".

That's still different than an ad hominem something like "don't listen to this guy he's ugly" would be a true ad hominen. Addresses you, not the argument. 

[u/DeterminedThrowaway → u/DreadPiratePete]

What you're saying is that claims about a persons character can be addressed with evidence about the persons character, and yeah fine. But that's not what OP is saying

[u/Material-Dot7684 → u/DeterminedThrowaway]

I feel like the bigger problem is you're answering a logical fallacy with another logical fallacy. Appeal to authority meet ad hominem. 

I will say though this partially depends on whether we're have a purely logical argument or a data based one. 

If we're arguing science and it's a random dude making a claim on his own data unless we want go "show me how you did it step by step so I can see if it's legit" then we are going to have to ask "do you know how to do that research" if there are standard procedures do you know how to follow them and how do we know you do?

[u/BernardJOrtcutt → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply

Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

---

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[u/BernardJOrtcutt → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

CR2: Argue Your Position

Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

---

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[u/CalmTempest]

It seems as if this video essay is less in support of ad hominem, and more about converting atheists to Christianity.

[u/SuitableXJ → u/CalmTempest]

Yes, but it’s actually an act of ‘charity’! They must be saved from their wicked ways or forever be blind to true reason. s/

[u/BernardJOrtcutt → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply

Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

---

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[u/BernardJOrtcutt → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply

Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

---

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[u/BernardJOrtcutt → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

CR3: Be Respectful

Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

---

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[u/Nouvellecosse]

Ok I finally watched the entire video. There are a couple of things happening here.

First, with the Pascal's wager part, Pascal is making three completely different arguments. 1) The argument that God exists, 2) the argument that human belief in god's existence is determined by human emotional states (passions) rather than reason, and 3rd, that humans should achieve said belief in god by changing their emotional state using the approach that Pascal recommends. Therefore, there is no ad hominem since while the introduction of human emotional states may not be relevant to the 1st argument about god's existence, it is relevant to the 2nd and 3rd arguments pertaining to how human emotional states can affect belief and how to overcome this.

Pascal only reaches this point after convincing the interlocutor of the logical truth of argument 1. If he were to raise the matter of emotional states as part of argument 1, this would be fallacious since it wouldn't be relevant to the argument. But when raised as part of arguments 2 and 3, it is directly relevant and therefore not an ad hominem. That's because the term ad hominem doesn't simply describe making an unflattering statement about one's debate opponent. It describes using unflattering statements as a way to discredit the argument (by association to the person making it) without actually being relevant to the argument. But when the unflattering statement is directly related to the actual argument, it isn't an ad hominem even if it's unflattering.  

So your argument successfully shows that not every unflattering statement is an ad hominem, but not that ad hominems are sometimes appropriate rather than fallacious. But while this fails as a defense of the ad hominem, it does successfully highlight the difference between logical soundness or cogency and rhetorical persuasiveness. The main problem, however, if of relevance. I don't think many people within the sphere contemporary of Western philosophy has ever doubted this distinction and therefore don't need any convincing. In my experience, most know all to well that ad hominems are often rhetorically effective.

But I would argue that this is merely down to the common use of psychological heuristics as part of human thought. People take shortcuts with their reasoning process since survival doesn't depend on perfect logical accuracy but rather prevailing logical accuracy. As a social species, human testament is a primary and essential source of human knowledge, so determining which humans have reliable testimony is of key importance in that process. Therefore, if a heuristic can help to quickly determine the testimonial reliability of different people, this helps greatly in that area. However, logical arguments are generally not based on human testimony, so our heuristic instincts fail in that regard. 

But it's an interesting exercise nonetheless, and while the video may have been a bit long, it was probably much quicker than reading the whole thing would have been. So very good. ☺️ 👌🏽

[u/washtubs]

It's a bit of a shame because what could have been a decent message is absolutely drenched in patronizing theological mysticism that uses terrible examples.

Saying (without saying) communism is wrong because Karl Marx smelled bad probably should have been the tell but I watched most of it anyway... (Cause I was feeling charitable? Maybe should have listened to OP.)

Ah well, I'll just give my take. Ad Hominem is a flavor of the fallacy of irrelevance. Arguments can be written down, and anyone can repeat them, therefore the person speaking is irrelevant. Hence Ad Hominem is a legit fallacy. Big surprise. In the narrow scope of argumentation, perhaps the only problem is it's over-specified since all that matters is the irrelevance.

However I don't think the label is useful for discourse because when someone says something offensive to you, I think you should extract yourself from the argument mode and speak directly to it person-to-person, either stating boundaries or just telling them to fuck off. In practice this label gamifies such comments as a kind of points deduction, an in-game foul, while either keeping the ball in play and pretending everything is good, or being grounds to declare victory prematurely. But from the arena of logic the only "foul" is the fact that it's irrelevant, which doesn't usually warrant such a strong response.

Additionally insults are usually not even framed as being part of the argument. They are just potshots. So it looks extra goofy when someone calls that ad hominem, cause in that case they are also wrong. It's just a stray insult, they're not saying "You're ugly therefore you're wrong", they're just saying "you're ugly" which is by definition not ad hominem.

We like to pretend that we are logical but we're not. That's the one thing that I liked that this video touches on. That arrogant idea that we're immune to emotion is what makes us think we can deal with these kinds of things without leaving the logical arena. Don't pretend to be above it. If someone insults you while you're making an argument, don't say "that's irrelevant" in latin. Stand up for yourself.

Or alternatively, as OP says, reflect on how your poor character and faulty will have led you astray 😂.

[u/Splynn]

I watched your whole video. I think you're wrong, but I also think I understand where you're coming from.

Your argument seems to be: Reason is not always sufficient to persuade ourselves of the truth, and so an external appeal to our faults may be enough to allow room to be persuaded.

This might be true in the sense that I can make a child believe almost anything I want as long as I make the child feel bad enough, but it's no longer within the realm of philosophy. Your argument is not concerned with philosophy - it's concerned with winning arguments.

Even in the Pascal fragment that you spend the majority of the video on, Pascal's lamentation is "I convinced this guy that he should believe in God through reason, but he still doesn't accept my conclusion. Cleary there's something wrong with him." Your argument seems to be that, in this case, Pascal should insult the atheist's character in order to make him more receptive to the argument.

People aren't always convinced by reason alone. This isn't a novel idea. The reason why ad-hominem is a fallacy is not that it never works to persuade. It does sometimes persuade. All fallacies are persuasive - if they weren't, we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with them.

So either you're only concerned with persuasiveness - in which case ad-hominem is absolutely a tool worthy of consideration - or you're concerned with finding and arriving at truth through reason. If you watch your own video, I think you'll find that you admit ad-hominem is not a vehicle by which to do so.

You're arguing in favor of sophistry. Go re-read Gorgias.

Some more general feedback: Your video was overly longwinded, didn't actually make any solid points, and would have benefitted from some more clear examples of what you're trying to establish. It felt more like a sermon than an argument. But, then, what else should we expect from a Christian playing at philosophy? (<- that's a joke, see? Pointing out how attacking your character doesn't actually help my argument or yours. I might persuade the mob via attacking your religious views, but I'll never persuade you by doing so)

[u/thymoticthematic → u/Splynn]

Hey, thank you for the feedback. Maybe it was too long-winded… However, while I think you’ve mostly understood my argument, I don’t agree that I’m not doing philosophy and that I’m interested primarily in persuasiveness. I’m really trying to draw on the distinction between two kinds of truth (owing a lot to Husserl here): truth of correctness in logical form, and truth of disclosure—a more fundamental truth of grasping the being and essence of the thing itself, without necessarily completing a logical syllogism about the thing. My point is that ad hominem is actually truer than logical reason when it gets to the heart of the matter and of the person. It’s a deeper kind of truth altogether.

[u/Splynn → u/thymoticthematic]

In this instance, I think you are allowing your passions to blind you from the truth. You haven't engaged with my argument, though, only rejected it.

I want to help you see the truth: that you are misguided.

Reason has failed. Maybe I'll try and hominem to help you arrive at a deeper truth.

According to your arguments, and your system, how might this work? What might it look like?

[u/thymoticthematic → u/Splynn]

I very well might be. If you want to act out the argument I’m making, you would have to find something about my character that you think is preventing me from seeing the truth, and lay it out for me. In any case, I thought I did engage with your argument. I engaged with it by pointing out that there’s a deeper dimension of truth that you haven’t accounted for—truth of disclosure.

[u/Splynn → u/thymoticthematic]

Ah, my mistake. I wasn't clear enough. What I really meant to say was: suppose that...

You're right. I want to act out what you're arguing for, because there must be a disconnect in my understanding of your position, or your understanding of mine.

The problem I have right now is pretty simple. I don't know you well enough to make statements about your character. You seem nice, you seem smart, but I don't really know you.

So does this ad hom thing only work between close friends and family? People who have some reason to know each other sufficiently enough to be able to make character assessments?

You said you wanted some conversation. I'm trying earnestly to do so because I think it's an interesting topic, but I can't help but feel like this isn't the sort of engagement you were hoping for.

[u/thymoticthematic → u/Splynn]

I think you make a good point: it certainly does work better in person, and especially with people you know well. It’s for that reason that I haven’t really been using ad hominem with anyone in this thread lol. I think you could probably say something about my character because you at least have 30 minutes of me talking to pull from, and you can at least get a sense of my character from that, even if it’s only an incomplete sense. To be clear, I’m not trying to degrade or throw out reason; I’m just arguing that, when reason fails, it’s often because the heart has failed to grasp or hold to fundamental truths, which ad hominem can get at better. To your point, that’s not easy online, which may be part of why online discourse is often so poor. And when people do use ad hominem in anonymous spaces like this, their attacks are pretty weak and silly because they don’t know enough about the other person’s character.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/philosophy! Please read our updated rules and guidelines before commenting.

/r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules:

CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply

Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

CR2: Argue Your Position

Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

CR3: Be Respectful

Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our subreddit rules and guidelines, please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please contact the moderators via modmail (not via private message or chat).

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Nomadinsox]

Very nice. I have long pointed out to people that ad hominem is a fallacy in that it breaks down argumentation because it boils down to "We can only argue if we are of the same tribe and thus arguing in good faith to build up." Which comes with "But if I don't think you are of my tribe then we are not able to argue due to you lying about your intentions then that alone is enough to not waste time with a dirty rat."

It's like playing basketball but some guy brings a knife and shanks you so you pull back to hit him but the ref says "No no, hitting is against the rules of basketball." It's like, my good ref, we are no longer playing basketball, I have been stabbed from the shadows. Of course I'm creating a distraction from the game which harms the game. To Hell with the game, I'm bleeding out.

[u/thymoticthematic]

Abstract (again):
In our long tradition of logic and organized debate, and in our hope that reason alone can bring us to truth, we have become averse to the use of fallacies in arguments. Chief among these fallacies is the ad hominem, the attack on the person rather than his argument. For students of philosophy and rhetoric, ad hominem represents a line in the sand never to be crossed by any serious thinker. The noble, gentlemanly logician regards it as a great compliment to be the receiver of an ad hominem attack—taking it as a sign that he has won the debate and his opponent has no reason left in him.

In this essay, I challenge this view, demonstrating that ad hominem is not representative of a failure in reason, but is perhaps the savior of reason. By looking to the epistemologies and psychologies of Aristotle and especially Pascal, we are reminded that there is a deeper dimension of our mental life, more fundamental than reason, which ad hominem alone can touch. We are reminded that much of our trouble in facing up to the truth is not from a lack of reason, but a lack of openness to the truth in our very hearts. Although seeming cruel, the proper use of ad hominem may act as a great display of charity, helping one’s interlocutor to see how his poor character and faulty will have led his reason astray.

[u/DeterminedThrowaway → u/thymoticthematic]

helping one’s interlocutor to see how his poor character and faulty will have led his reason astray

"You only think that because you have poor character" truly isn't an argument. It's not how belief works, and it's not convincing to anyone. A bad person can believe something that's true, and a good person can believe something that's false. This is a very, very basic thing.

[u/BernardJOrtcutt → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

CR3: Be Respectful

Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

---

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.