Some criticize those who use ad hominem to attack their opponents particularly those who are educated and know better.
However, ad hominem is often used purposefully in debates because it will get the desired result. President Ronald Reagan was very skilled at ad hominem, one liners, and humor. For example:
“I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” -during a 1984 presidential debate with Walter Mondale.”
Many political analysts will tell you that this remark during the debate contributed greatly to Reagan winning the election. In fact, from the reaction of Walter Mondale we can see that he sadly recognized the effectiveness of the comment and had to laugh.
Is it amazing that an actor, with this kind of talent, could become our President? No. Using degrees, certificates, age, good looks, powerful friends, and talent can take people to the top. Occasionally some smart good looking woman becomes a CEO and is accused of sleeping her way to the top of an organization even when the accusation is completely false. Even so, good looks often do help people on their way to the top.
What is ad hominem?
Translated from Latin to English, “ad hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”
An ad hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. This type of “argument” has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.
The reason why an ad hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Unlike some, I don’t believe that this type of fallacy should always be avoided unless we are unskilled in the use of this kind of counterattack. In that case we should stick as close as we can to facts and hope for the best. The skillful counterattack by Ronald Reagan regarding the circumstances of his age disqualifying him to be President (countering ad hominem with ad hominem and humor) was not only fair but also effective. If Ronald Reagan had said in a debate, in a sober manner, that an attack on him as a person (his age) is a logical fallacy, etc. and has nothing to do with his qualifications to be President. Or, who knows if a person will live to be 30, 40, or 100 into the future? He would certainly have been ineffective in his argument and focused on the very issue he was trying to counter.
However, there are instances when ad hominem is not only unfair but, in my opinion, immoral.
Legal systems or “rules of law” are established to fairly administer justice even though life isn’t fair and justice doesn’t always prevail. We may hear false testimony or false witness that causes unjust consequences.
