(Below definitions and amplifications from Wikipedia)
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the
person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious
argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is
avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the
person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather
than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2].....
Criticism as a fallacy
Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that
ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances,
questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and
relevant to the issue,[9] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions
contradicting the subject's words.
------------------
Those skilled in debate know that the purpose of debate can
be as complex as human nature itself.
Very rarely does debate merely involve a purely objective and pristinely intellectual rationality. Self-interest, conviction, emotion, and the defense of
one’s very legitimacy as a person (rather than supinely acquiescing to one’s opponent’s portrayal of you as a twisted,
irrational buffoon) all can be vital to
the skill and art of debate.
In our last presidential election cycle we witnessed the ad hominem
argument pursued with a spiteful vengeance by Donald Trump—even towards his Republican
primary opponents. Now we see the critics of Trump also making impassioned ad
hominem arguments--but now based on the rationale that such an approach has urgent, ethical
grounding (and it would be fallacious to pretend that character is not the major
factor at play).
---------------------
Print Page
