Ad Hominem – is it a logical fallacy or a good argument?
“Donald Trump said something inappropriate about women, so he can never make any good decisions.”
“Hillary Clinton has lied and cheated, therefore, all of her ideas are for personal gain.”
These are examples of Ad Hominem fallacies. Attacking a person rather than addressing a claim.
This is perhaps the most common logical fallacy used, and while we see it mostly used in politics, or at least most egregiously used in politics, it’s an argument we have probably all used at one point or another.
What does an easy example of the argument look like? How about this:
Kim Kardashian claims the earth is flat. Kim Kardashian is a moron. Therefore, the earth is not flat.
Is that a good argument? While the conclusion you may have gotten to may be right, that doesn’t make the argument a good one.
For instance, you could just as easily use this argument and make it look incredibly silly.
Kim Kardashian claims there are starving children in Africa. Kim Kardashian is a moron. Therefore, there are no starving children in Africa.
Now this argument is no longer holding up. By attacking the person before, it was giving you results that were correct, but now it’s leading you to a conclusion that’s incorrect. Remember the way we have an argument laid out. We have a claim made up of one or more other claims supporting it. Above all of these claims is the person making them. People think that if you can take out the person, then you also take out their argument. The idea of if you cut off the head of a snake then it dies.
However, this is simply not the case. As I’ve heard it before, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Just because this person may have horrible character or they seem to be a complete moron, that in itself doesn’t discredit their claim.
I’ve heard some pretty ridiculous attacks before. Attacks that are completely petty and mean nothing. For instance, I once heard an argument that went something like this, “She’s really ugly, so everything she says is wrong.” People will stupe to pretty low levels if they don’t like someone and want to discredit claims that they are making.
I recently saw an interview with Ben Shapiro and Bill Maher. Maher says something to the effect of “You’re team Trump, right?” and Shapiro responds and basically says “I’m sometimes Trump. When he does stuff I like, I cheer, and when he does something I hate, I boo, and I am booing just as loudly as you.”
I love this approach. By looking at each individual claim instead of basing your arguments off the character or history of another person, you are much more clearly able to get into the actual argument at hand.
This, of course, doesn’t mean dismissing their character at all when assessing a claim. As Sadler points out in his lecture, the third time the boy cried wolf, they had reason to dismiss his claim. It’s fine to see a claim skeptically and with a doubtful approach, but just because someone is a “bad guy,” or they did something you didn’t like, that doesn’t mean they can never do something good, or something that you do like.