Advertisement

Fallacies in Ad Hominem Arguments

  • Christian DahlmanEmail author
  • David Reidhav
  • Lena Wahlberg
Chapter
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 102)

Abstract

Arguments ad hominem are common in political debates, legal argumentation and everyday conversations. In this article, we propose a general definition of ad hominem arguments. An argument ad hominem is an argument that makes a claim about the reliability of a person in the performance of a certain function, based on some attribute relating to the person in question. On the basis of this definition, we examine the different ways that ad hominem arguments can go wrong, and classify them as seven different ad hominem fallacies: false attribution, irrelevant attribute, overrated effect, reliability irrelevance, irrelevant person, insufficient degree and irrelevant function. The various fallacies are illustrated with examples from politics, law and everyday life.

Keywords

Extended Form Irrelevant Attribute Personal Attack False Premise Insurance Fraud 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bentham, Jeremy. 1824/1952. The handbook of political fallacies. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  2. Brinton, Alan. 1985. A rhetorical view of the Ad Hominem. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63(1): 50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brinton, Alan. 1995. The Ad Hominem. In Fallacies – Classical and contemporary readings, ed. Hans Hansen and Robert Pinto, 213–222. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Copi, Irving, and Carl Cohen. 2002. Introduction to logic, 11th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Hamblin, Charles L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  6. Heise, Nicole. 2009. Deciding not to decide: Nuremberg and the ambiguous history of the Tu Quoque defense. Social Science Research Network. Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc., http://ssrn.com/abstract=1354048.
  7. Hinman, Lawrence. 1982. The case for Ad Hominem arguments. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 60(4): 338–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hitchcock, David. 2006. Why there is no Argumentum ad Hominem fallacy. McMaster University, http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hitchckd/adhominemissa.htm.
  9. Johnson, Christopher. 2009. Reconsidering the Ad Hominem. Philosophy 84(2): 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. van Eemeren, Frans, and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Relevance reviewed: The case of argumentum ad Hominem. Argumentation 6(2): 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Waller, Bruce. 2005. Critical thinking – Consider the verdict, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Walton, Douglas. 1987. The Ad Hominem argument as an informal fallacy. Argumentation 1(3): 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Walton, Douglas. 1998. Ad Hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  14. Walton, Douglas. 2006. Poisoning the well. Argumentation 20(3): 273–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Woods, John. 2007. Lightening up on the Ad Hominem. Informal Logic 27(1): 109–134.Google Scholar
  16. Woods, John. 2010. The death of argument. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Yee, Sienho. 2004. The Tu Quoque argument as a defence to international crimes, prosecution or punishment. Chinese Journal of International Law 3(1): 87–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Dahlman
    • 1
    Email author
  • David Reidhav
    • 1
  • Lena Wahlberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of LawLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations