An ad hominem argument judges what was said based on the credibility of the subject
The Latin phrase ad hominem translates as “to the person.” It is usually used in our language to construct the expression ad hominem argument .
Addressed to the subject
An ad hominem argument is one based on the actions or opinions of the same individual to whom it is directed , with the objective of persuading or confronting him. It is, therefore, an argument that points to the confusion of the interlocutor by opposing his own actions or sayings.
Many times the ad hominem argument is focused directly against the subject . By pointing out an unwanted, questionable or undervalued characteristic of yours, you are trying to discredit your thesis .
It can be said that the ad hominem argument, in this framework, does not attack the other's statements, but directly attacks the person . Your educational level or your social class, to mention two possibilities, may be enough to vilify your position .
Fundamental structure
Thus the ad hominem argument can adopt the following structure :
– Juan holds A.
– There is a characteristic, quality or property of Juan that can be questioned.
– Therefore, A is questionable.
The scope of this mechanism has no limits, neither in the field of knowledge nor in reason. At worst, an unquestionable statement could be dismissed simply because it was made by a person with whom one has no sympathy . In other words, it does not matter what ideas Juan holds, since the predisposition towards him is unwaveringly negative, so he will always receive a negative response.
a fallacy
Of course, the speaker's eventual discredit does not indicate anything about the truth or falsity of his expressions. That is why it is often pointed out that the ad hominem argument is a fallacy .
Suppose a sports journalist claims that a soccer player played a bad game . Given this comment, a former player rejects the opinion, highlighting that the journalist was never a professional athlete . As you can see, this is an ad hominem argument : the fact that the journalist was not a professional soccer player does not discredit his statement .
We can also look at this characteristic of ad hominem arguments from another perspective. First of all, let's think about two people: Marta , who is considered unreliable, and Jorge , whom everyone respects; They both work in the same company, where someone has been sneakily stealing small amounts of money for weeks. Marta discovers it, and communicates her discovery, but since no one trusts her, they call her a liar; Jorge says that such a crime is not possible, and everyone agrees with him, without carrying out any investigation.
In this case, the ad hominem argument that Marta receives not only harms her, since it makes her feel that she is not worthy of respect, but also the company, because the theft will continue to take place. On the contrary, Jorge receives credit that he does not deserve, which feeds his ego, and thus the situation continues as it was.
Ad logical argument
All this brings us to the argument ad logicam , also known as from fallacy . In short, let's say that recognizing that the ad hominem argument is a fallacy should not lead us to another, which is formed simply by opposing our opinion about other people's statements.
If Juan is considered by those around him to be a person of questionable principles, simply by not falling into an ad hominem argument we should not believe that all his statements are valid. The argument ad logicam is also a fallacy , but one that arises from believing that reasoning contrary to logic is necessarily false.
There are many four-legged animals
Let's look at an example to understand how these two concepts can be entangled:
– Juan says: “dogs have four legs and, since Pipo has four legs, then he is a dog.”
Given such a statement, the valid refutation would be that "there are many four-legged animals, so that trait in itself is not enough evidence to affirm that Pipo is a dog." But discrediting him simply because of his reputation would be an ad hominem argument, while believing in him because the latter is a fallacy would be falling into ad logicam.