Ad Hominem
The word ‘Ad hominem’ in Latin means “to the person”. An ad hominem argument appeals to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect by attacking an opponent’s character instead of attacking the merit of the argument. ‘Ad hominem’ fallacies can take several forms.
A: Guilt of Personal Beliefs
For example, the carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke was originally discovered by Nazi scientists, and tobacco companies rejected the smoking–cancer link because it was “Nazi science.” [1]
We can express this argument in the following manner
- Nazi scientists discovered the carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke.
- All Nazi people are bad.
- Hence, the carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke is wrong.
For most people, their hatred for Hitler and the Nazi philosophy is a sufficient reason to reject everything that is said or discovered by the Nazis without looking into the merit of the statement. However, we must differentiate the knowledge from the source of knowledge. If the knowledge is correct, the source of knowledge becomes irrelevant. So, where are we going wrong?
This is not to say that we must totally ignore the credibility of the person from the argument attributed to the person, but the focus of critical thinkers should be not to allow their feelings towards the person or the organisation to influence their judgment. In Gandhi’s words, “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” Even a bad person can say good things and even a good person can commit mistakes. We have to differentiate the ‘knower’ from the ‘knowledge’.
No doubt Hitler was evil and so was the Nazi philosophy of anti-semitism. Therefore, their statements or claims in numerous matters can be rejected. However, in other matters, like science, where independent verification is possible, we can conduct independent studies and find the truth ourselves. Science is not a matter of opinion; the results should be repeatable, and facts are verifiable. Hence, we must not reject everything coming from a person or institution because we have rejected something from them.
Ad hominem can work in other ways as well. For example, if a claim is made by a respectable person like Abraham Lincoln or Gandhi, it is generally accepted as true. No wonder, the names of great people are often attributed to quotes that they never said to convince people to accept them.
However, in some cases, the association with the person can be relevant to arrive at the truth. Hence, ‘Ad hominem’ fallacy is not committed by associating the claim of the person with the character of the person. For example,
- John claimed that he had seen George killing Abraham
- John has a reputation for being a liar, and he has been caught lying several times.
- Hence, John’s testimony can’t be accepted.
Hence, if George’s guilt relies solely on the testimony of John, his character becomes an important factor, and so his testimony can’t be relied upon. However, if there is other independent evidence, like fingerprints or CCTV footage of the crime, corroborating his statement, it can still be accepted.
To sum up, when dealing with a matter of facts, like a scientific discovery, we must not rely on the person’s beliefs or emotions. Instead, we must verify the claim independently and accept it if it is true. Hence, if we test the observation of a scientific principle, and it passes the scientific investigation test, it must not be rejected solely on the grounds of the philosophy of the scientists or their affiliation with an organisation. However, we can reject their idea when it comes to opinions or ideology.
B: Guilt by Association
We know the common adage ‘A man is known by the company he keeps.’ We usually choose the company of people who are like us. However, often we have friends and family members who are quite unlike us. However, it is common to discredit a person and hence his claim on the grounds of his family background.
Guilt-by-association fallacy occurs when the argument of a person is rejected due to his association with people who are bad or untrustworthy. The person is deemed to be “guilty” just because he has an association with some bad people. Once a person is treated guilty, all his testimony is rejected.
For instance, Ravish Kumar is one of India’s most popular and respected journalists. He has been vocal about the many policies of India’s Right Wing ruling political party, i.e. BJP. A few years ago, his elder brother, Brajesh Pandey, was accused of sexual exploitation of a Dalit (an underprivileged caste) woman. He was also named as the candidate in the 2020 Bihar assembly elections of the opposition party Congress. As a result, the conduct of his brother was widely publicised by the Right Wing supporters to cast aspersion on the conduct of Ravish Kumar himself, even though Ravish committed no wrong. The argument forth by his opponents was,
- Ravish Kumar criticises the ruling party, BJP and supports the Dalits
- Ravish Kumar’s brother is a member of the Congress (opposition party) and is accused of sexual harassment of Dalit
- Hence, his criticism of the BJP is false, and he is against Dalits
The guilt-by-association is a very common methodology to discredit the people, particularly in politics. We know from our experience that all family members may have different moral values. We also have friendships with people who may possess a different set of values than us. Moreover, we often have no knowledge or control over the behaviour and actions of our friends and family members. Hence, it is wrong to discredit the reputation of a person, and all the values he or she stands for solely due to the wrong actions of friends and relatives.
A political party may have millions of members, and a politician has to meet many people in the course of his profession. He is a public figure and he can’t refuse to meet people, whose vote he may be seeking in every election. Now, often when any member of a political party is alleged to have committed a crime, the party and the top political leaders are blamed for it. The past picture of the man with the top political leaders frequently becomes viral on social media, and it is inferred that the top leader himself is responsible for the crime, because of his past association with the criminal due to the fallacy of guilt by association.
The important point is whether the politician was associated with the person after knowing that he had committed a crime. If the politician knowingly developed a friendship with the criminal or protected him after knowing his crimes, he would be blamed for misusing his power to protect a criminal. The same holds for any organisation. Suppose an employee of an organisation commits a wrong thing. In that case, the company should be blamed only when they fail to take appropriate action against the employee or deliberately appoint him, knowing his wicked activity. Just being associated with the wrong person does not prove guilt, particularly before the person was even accused of committing a crime.
So, why does the guilt-by-association Ad Hominem fallacy happen?
We discussed earlier that arguments in common language are often not presented in standard form, and we have to assume a number of premises to complete the argument. Without knowledge of the facts, people tend to assume what is most common or what provides them the greatest satisfaction or happiness. Hence, you generally assume the person to be wrong if he is associated with the wrong time of people because this is what happens most of the time. However, your assumed premises also depend on what invokes good feelings in you or makes you happy. Suppose you are a supporter of the BJP, the right-wing party of India; in that case, you will feel happy if critics of the BJP are found to be wrong or their testimony is discredited. However, if you are a hater of the BJP, you enjoy the reporting of the journalist Ravish Kumar; hence, your assumption will be different, and you will give him the benefit of the doubt.
If you seek truth, you must emotionally detach yourself from the person. You can reject the opinions of the person presented without evidence but accept those claims that are supported by reasons and evidence. Furthermore, it is important to understand the role of credibility in the persuasion power of our argument. If we avoid the company of bad people, else our reputation may be tarnished, and then our arguments will have little or no impact on the people.
C: Guilt by Hypocrisy
Hypocrisy is the practice of feigning to be what one is not, pretending to believe what one does not, or faking to feel what one does not. A hypocrite is a person who pretends to have a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., which one does not really possess. For example, if a person claims that drinking alcohol is bad, and he is found to be drinking alcohol, his argument that alcohol is bad for health is discredited. The argument is presented in the following manner.
- John says that alcohol drinking is bad for health.
- John is drinking alcohol himself.
- Hence, the claim of John that alcohol drinking for health is bad is false.
Again in this case, the merit of the effect of alcohol on health is independent of the behaviour of the person who is advocating it and must be dealt with accordingly. However, people often have difficulty in differentiating the words and the actions of the people because people are known by action. And hence, if their action does not harmonise with their words, their words are rejected on this ground. The argument is “If John does not believe his principle, because he does not follow his principle, then the principle must be false”.
It is quite possible that John may actually believe in the health hazards of alcohol but is unable to get rid of his addiction. He may be a living testimony of the evil effect of alcohol that once you get addicted, you can’t get rid of the bad habit, even if you want to. So, you must avoid consuming alcohol in the first place to develop credibility with the audience. In the absence of credibility, your testimony shall always be suspect. Hence, to persuade the people, you have to provide solid, verifiable evidence to support your claim in the form of irrefutable studies, which have the power to stand on their own legs without your support.
Mahatma Gandhi understood the importance of maintaining harmony between words and deeds as evidenced from the following story.
Once, Mahatma Gandhi was travelling in India. A mother and her son came to him for help. She asked, “Please tell my son to stop eating sugar.”
Gandhi said, “Go home and come back in two weeks.” They travelled hundreds of miles back home and returned two weeks later.
Gandhi then told the son, “Don’t eat sugar.” The mother asked, “Why did you make us come back? Why didn’t you just say that earlier?”
Gandhi replied, “Before I could tell your son to stop eating sugar, I had to stop eating sugar myself. I had to set a good example.”
On the contrary, Mr Keshab Chunder Sen, who was a Hindu philosopher and social reformer encouraged the education of women and campaigned for the remarriage of widows and for legislation to prevent child marriages. However, when Keshab arranged for his underage daughter to marry the underage Prince of Cooch Behar, he was accused of being a hypocrite and the social reform movement of child marriage was widely criticised and discredited. [2]
Under the situation, it was alright to criticise Keshab Chunder Sen, because, as the father of an underage child, he had full control over her marriage, but it is wrong to discredit the principle of anti-child marriage.
The philosophy given by Socrates does not lose its value if he himself did not practice it, provided it is otherwise good. Gandhi’s words would have been equally effective if he had convincingly told the boy not to eat sugar. Don’t so many political leaders and motivational speakers do it every day? Hence, I don’t see any additional power of words if they are consistent with our actions, and they lose their power if the speaker’s actions are inconsistent with the words. However, as an audience, we find it difficult to accept the speaker’s words if we know he does not act on his own words without justifiable reason. For instance, if a sugar-eating doctor tells a diabetes pataint not to eat sugar because that can cause damage to his organs, not as an opinion, but because of the scientific studies, no sensible patient would reject the doctor’s advice simply because the doctor eats sugar. As a rational person, we must not reject his advice, even if he is eating sugar despite having diabetes, because his advice is based on evidence and reason and not based on his personal opinion,
We often fail to eat healthy food and work out despite knowing well the harmful effects of high-calorie food and a sedentary lifestyle due to a lack of willpower. However, our inability to follow our principles does not taint the merit of the principle itself as many other people may be following and benefiting from using the same principle.
Reference
[1] Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters, Steven Pinker
