Ad hominem

Under an argumentum ad hominem (Latin for "proof speech to man "), an argument is understood, in which the position or thesis of an armed opponent is challenged by an attack on personal circumstances or characteristics of his person. This happens most often with the intention of the position and its representative populum like a argumentum ad for an audience or to bring in public opinion into disrepute. It can also be used in the rhetoric deliberately as polemical and possibly pettifogging strategy.

Scheme

Historical Summary

While the argumentum ad hominem was considered a prime example of a polemical argument and a logical fallacy in older literature, this according to recent interpretations is not unreservedly applied in every case, but only when a logical fallacy is committed, in the English literature as a genetic fallacy is called. The genetic fallacy is one but the sophistries already described by Aristotle.

Only recently has the argumentum ad hominem is the subject of systematic observation, which is due to the treatment in Charles Leonard Hamblin's Fallacies. Hamblin thus started the debate on the so-called Informal Logic. In Fallacies Hamblin cites a passage from John Locke's treatise An Essay Concerning Human Understanding ( 1690) as the source of the term argumentum ad hominem. However, Locke stated at the time that this expression does not come by himself, thus the question of the origin of the term remained unclear. Hamblin argues that the ad hominem concept actually came from Aristotle.

In the retrospective approach was demonstrated by Maurice Finocchiaro that the argumentum ad hominem is an important tool in the dialogues of Galileo represented and Locke was influenced by them. According to Walton had Galileo and Locke very similar ideas of this argument, they also gave to both that it basically consists of compromising his opponent.

The hypothesis has been confirmed by Hamblin Nuchelmans that describes two different Ad Hominem patterns that have been described and used repeatedly since the first description by Aristotle. A similar subdivision already took Schopenhauer before in his work for eristic dialectic. There, the compromise of the opponent is on the one hand, on the other hand, the personal attack with the aim to provoke the enemy to abort the dispute be referred to. Only the first variant would like Schopenhauer called argumentum ad hominem, while proposing for the second the term argumentum ad personam.

Douglas Walton has finally presented with Ad Hominem argument a standard work, which precisely defines the concept and clearly distinguishable subtypes names.

Subtypes according to Walton

Walton divides the argumentum ad hominem in five subtypes by pointing out that these same shall be deemed accepted by scientists for the most part: "five types or subcategories of ad hominem argument recur as being Recognized As central most frequently - the abusive, the circumstantial, the bias, tu quoque the ( or " you too " ), and the poisoning the well ". This is individually discussed in detail below.

Direct ad hominem

As abusive ad hominem ( abusive ad hominem ) that can be called reasoning, in which a person is immediately attacked for rejecting all their claims. This argument has the pattern: "X is a bad person, so you should give him no faith ."

Despite the broad acceptance of the term abusive ad hominem Walton recommends that you use it only for clear abuse and lack positive cases in which the person is being attacked unjustly. The word abusive suggests not only the violation of the person, but rather also that the argument is unjustified. Since, according to Walton certainly are cases in which an ad hominem is legitimate and which are not based on a logical fallacy, he suggests as Direct Ethotic. The direct stresses the direct attack, the ethotic the " ethos " of others, specifically the nature of certain personality traits.

Walton distinguishes the following five subtypes of Direct ( Ethotic ) Ad Hominem:

• From Veracity (lack of truthfulness )
• From Prudence (lack of reason or caution)
• From Perception ( lack of understanding / ignorance)
• From Cognitive Skills (lack of cognitive abilities )
• From Morals (lack of moral principles ).

All subtypes have in common that they represent a specific aspect of the personality of the counterparty to be insufficient for the Vorbringung a valid argument, statement or opinion.

Performative ad hominem

The performative ad hominem ( circumstantial ad hominem ) was designed partly as wide in the past, it was difficult to distinguish between this and the abusive ad hominem. Walton determined this subtype as follows: "the circumstantial type of ad hominem argument requires some kind of practical inconsistency in between what an arguer says and some propositions Directly or Indirectly by overexpressed did arguer 's personal Circumstances. "

Here is not the argumentative ability, but the authority of the opponent to judge a certain point attacked. In particular, it looks for a performative contradiction between behavior and assertion. An example would be when a mother smokes herself, but her child suggests not to smoke because it is very unhealthy. The child replied: "Obviously it is not as unhealthy as you even even smoke! " The child's testimony dealt with the contradiction between the testimony of the mother and her action. The assertion by the mother must thus not necessarily be untrue or the reasoning be regarded as conclusive fail just because an inconsistency between the argument advanced by their rule and their own behavior is.

Bias

The partiality -ad - hominem (bias ad hominem ), the impartiality of any person in respect of the disputed point in question. The claim of the opponent is attributed to self-serving motives and it is an interest in a truthful, clever, or the common good acceptable decision denied.

Poisoning wells

Walton proposes that the well poisoning ( poisoning the well) to be regarded as intensification of partiality -ad - hominem, in which the bias of the speaker is well established and it interest is assumed that clearly contrary to the public and by the latter as morally contemptible considered will.

Thus, by appropriately framing, for example, by equating abortion and murder, be implied that anyone who wishes to defend the right to abortion, a potential " child killer " is. Even if these allegations may be far-fetched, the following applies: Semper aliquid Häret ( " something is always hang" ), thus the basis for an abusive ad hominem is placed.

See also: well poisoning, homicide argument

Tu quoque

This Argumentationsart is often used to return the attacking argument to the sender. It is not contested his authority to put forward the argument (as in the performative ad hominem ), instead, the claim of the opponent is taken as an opportunity to self to blame him directly and to bring independent of the specific factual issue to silence. Example: " Do not tell me that I should quit smoking, you qualmst even like a chimney! ". Walton leaves open whether this pattern is classified under the umbrella term ad hominem.

Argumentum ad personam

As argumentum ad personam of the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer refers in his work to eristic dialectic a dummy argument, which depends, like the argumentum ad hominem on the person of the opponent, but it contains no reference more to the actual topic of debate and only factually irrelevant personal characteristics attacks. It requires, in contrast to argumentum ad hominem is not logical, is in the extreme case of a simple insult. Schopenhauer running it as a last resort in a dispute at:

" When you realize that the enemy is superior and you will retain wrong, so you 'll personally offensive, rude. "

This approach is popular because it can be applied by anyone. In contrast, the ability was added to a factual dispute and the confessing of one's wrongs not any, and he remarks:

" It follows that in a hundred is hardly one who is worthy to be disputed with him."

Schopenhauer emphasizes that a dialectical victory, the factual refutation of a position, a bitter dispute opponents far more than a mere insult, and even recommends this approach as a counter- strategy.