”When the person is attacked instead of the argument.”
Definition:
The ad hominem fallacy occurs when, instead of examining the content of an argument or claim, attention shifts to the person making it. The attack may target their character, motives, appearance, background, or past behaviour. The aim is not to counter the argument with logic, but to discredit the speaker.
This fallacy attacks who is speaking, rather than what is being said.
Ad hominem is Latin for “against the person”—an attack on the individual, instead of the argument.
Typical structure of this fallacy:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Instead of responding to the claim, Person B says:
3. “Person A has a negative trait, therefore claim X is false.”
Real-life examples:
1. In political debate:
“This MP had several traffic fines in his youth, so his opinion on economic reform is worthless.”
Here, it should be noted that there is no connection between a driving record and economic competence.
2. In a family conversation:
“You never read books yourself, so your opinion on the benefits of reading is worthless.”
Here, it should be noted that what they say about the value of reading might still be valid, even if they don’t practise it themselves.
3. On social media:
“This user only has 50 followers, so obviously their comments on climate change are worthless!”
Here, it should be noted that the number of followers has no bearing on the validity of a scientific opinion.
4. In cross-cultural discussion:
“He’s a foreigner, what would he know about our country’s politics?”
Here, it should be noted that being a foreigner does not prevent someone from offering a logical analysis.
5. In an academic setting:
“He had his thesis written with the help of his supervisor, and now he’s telling us how to write papers!”
Here, it should be noted that even if the claim about his thesis is valid, it doesn’t necessarily mean his guidance is without value.
6. In the media:
“This expert has often been criticised for his harsh statements, so his opinion on inflation can’t be trusted either.”
Here, it should be noted that being criticised on one subject does not invalidate one’s view on another.
Types of ad hominem attack:
- Attack on character: undermining the person’s moral or behavioural credibility.
- Attack on motive: attributing evil intent or a hidden agenda to the speaker.
- Attack on background: referring to the person’s past or social class.
- Attack on affiliation: accusing the person of bias instead of responding with reason.
- Reverse version (Tu Quoque): “You did the same thing yourself!”
Why is this fallacy dangerous?
It damages the public discourse, especially in media and politics.
It turns logical discussion into personal conflict.
It silences people with differing viewpoints.
It derails the content of the debate from a rational path.
How can we recognise and respond to it?
Ask:
- “Is the criticism aimed at the person or their argument?”
- Evaluate the argument independently of the speaker.
- In response, steer the discussion back to the core issue: “There may be criticisms of the person, but let’s examine the argument itself.”