Ad Hominem: Definition and Meaning

A comprehensive explanation of the phrase "ad hominem" was provided by English logician Richard Whately in the middle of the 19th century, which marks the beginning of the modern understanding of the term. It was also claimed that "ad hominem" arguments typically centred on the peculiar circumstances, personality, open opinions, or prior behaviour of an individual.

What is Ad hominem?

Ad hominem is a Latin phrase that means "to the person" or "to the thing." It entails appealing to one's own thoughts rather than logic or reason in order to be more exact. One strategy would be to criticize a person's personality rather than their arguments. This expression is typically used to describe a case where the argument is focused more on the flaws of the opposing party than on its own merits.

Illustration

Ad hominem arguments can be as simple as attacking someone without fully responding to their point or as complex as questioning their motivations in response to their critique of the way things are right now.

Types of Ad Hominem

There are four types of ad hominem as given below −

• Abusive: Ad hominem abuse seeks to undermine the opponent by making venomous personal assaults. By asserting that the opponent is mentally unstable, one also declares their position unstable and without foundation.

• Circumstantial: When one criticizes the other based on a condition or incident that occurred, i.e., when the assault is based on the circumstance rather than the argument, this is known as circumstantial ad hominem.

• Ad hominem circumstantial arguments use a person's personal history or character to support a position that veers from the topic at hand. For instance, when arguing the value of financial literacy, one opponent tends to focus more on the other person's financial condition than the topic at hand.

• Guilt: Guilt ad hominem links the opponent to a group that is refuted or denounced, casting doubt on the opponent's character. By claiming that a person belongs to a group that society has rejected socially, morally, or legally, one might accuse the opponent of ad hominem guilt and undermine their case.

• For instance, implying that the opponent is associated with a racist, anti−Semitic, or transphobic organization will cause them to reject the current argument.

• Poisoning the well: Prejudices are used in this particular ad hominem assault. Instead of making an actual criticism of the argument, one attempts to undermine it subtly by making a comment on a prejudice they possess.

• For instance, Amir cites the office basement as a suitable location for practicing. Jimmy responds, "As if the boss pays you to talk well about the office behind them," to which the other person responds. Jimmy's statement is silent on the question of whether the basement is a good idea or not. Instead, he makes biased remarks about Amir, believing that the reason the latter says what he does is because he is a kiss−up.

Important Case Laws

• The Supreme Court cited the Privy Council's ruling in the Liyanage and others v. Reginam (1966) case, in which their Lordships of the Privy Council introduced the notion of legislating ad hominem and overturned the law as a result.

• State vs Keil (1990): In the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four, during the state's closing argument in the aforementioned case, the public prosecutor made the implication that "if he'll do it to his own nephew, he'll do it to anyone" when speaking about a sexual act. The defense attorney's objection to this argument was upheld by the Trial Court, and no further remedy was asked for. As if this weren't enough, the prosecutor afterwards referred to the defense lawyers as "vultures." The defense attorney's objection was once again upheld by the Trial Court, which also asked that the jury be told to disregard the statement. The Court, however, rejected the motion for a mistrial.

In the aforementioned situation, the law prohibits a lawyer from disparaging the opposing counsel by making a personal attack on the lawyer because argument ad hominem condemns the argument since it condemns the arguer. The defense lawyers are "vultures," for instance.

Conclusion

Ad hominem is a fallacious form of argument. The ad hominem fallacy occurs when a counterattack is launched on something other than the line of argument, such as the opponent, a social prejudice, etc. Ad hominem assaults come in a variety of forms.

Ad hominem arguments can also be fair and logically sound, although in common usage, the term refers mostly to a fallacious assault that is defective for some reason, such as because it is irrelevant to the subject.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How is ad hominem work?

Ans: An ad hominem argument is a personal attack on the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. In essence, this means that ad hominem attacks are employed to subtly criticize opposing viewpoints by denigrating the people or organizations that support them.

Q: What fallacy is comparable to the ad hominem one?

Ans: Ad Hominem − related fallacies include personal, attack, name−calling, poisoning the well, guilt by association, and genetic fallacies.

Q: Is the fallacy of ad hominem true?

Ans: This fallacy happens when you attack the person making the argument or some feature of them in an unrelated way rather than responding to their argument or viewpoint. The false accusation may also be made directly against an institution or group membership.

Q: Why is ad hominem inadmissible?

Ans: Ad hominem attacks are made in reference to the other person rather than their point of view. Ad hominem arguments are frequently inadmissible since they frequently lack supporting data.