Question

mod 8 Using examples, distinguish between abusive and circumstantial ad hominem.

Answer 1

• The phrase ad hominem is Latin and means “to the man.” The fallacy is so named because it directs an argument against the person making a claim rather than the claim itself.
• The fallacy comes in two varieties: abusive ad hominem and circumstantial ad hominem. In the abusive ad hominem, the critic attacks his opponent’s character or insults him in an attempt to discredit him in the eyes of the audience. This tactic is common in politics, and it may psychologically sway people.
• The ad hominem abusive is the fallacy that that an agent's belief has not been proved (or is mistaken) because that person is somehow deficient as evidenced by some undesirable aspects of that person's character, personality, morality, or competence.
• Name-calling is perhaps the most obvious form of the abusive ad hominem fallacy. When children have a heated disagreement, they sometimes engage in such behavior. As we grow up, we are supposed to become rational and learn to make arguments based on logical reasoning.
• The circumstantial ad hominem fallacy is when a critic simply dismisses a person’s argument based on the arguer’s circumstances. The ad hominem circumstantial is the fallacy that someone's belief has not been proved (or is mistaken because that person's position is motivated by actions or personal circumstances which most likely bias that person's judgment.
• Suppose a person makes an argument that taxes on gasoline should be increased. Her opponent, tries to refute this by pointing out that her job is tax-supported, so she is strongly motivated to argue for higher taxes.
• The opponent concludes that her argument is wrong since she has a bias. The opponent has committed the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy—just because she is strongly motivated to defend a particular position does not mean that her argument is faulty.