Sign In Sign Up
Home / Informal Fallacies / Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem

informal Fallacy

The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone tries to refute an argument by attacking the personal characteristics of the person making it, rather than addressing the argument itself. This fallacy incorrectly assumes that negative traits about a person automatically invalidate their arguments, despite there being no logical connection between personal characteristics and the truth of their claims.

Example of Ad Hominem

  • Bill claims that this was an accident, but we know Bill to be a liar, so we can't take his word for it. Even though Bill may be a liar, his character does not automatically make anything he says untrue.
  • Susan is an avid hunter, therefore she cannot possibly support gun control. Being a hunter is used as a negative characteristic to make a conclusion which could very well be untrue. Susan could support a variety of gun control legislation.

Note

Short for: Argumentum Ad Hominem

In more detail

An Ad Hominem fallacy is a logical fallacy in which someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the character, motive, or other attributes of the person making the argument, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. The Latin phrase "ad hominem" literally translates to "to the person."

This fallacy takes several forms:

  • Abusive ad hominem: Direct attacks on a person's character ("You're too young to understand this issue")
  • Circumstantial ad hominem: Suggesting someone's circumstances make their argument invalid ("Of course you'd oppose the tax cuts—you're wealthy")
  • Tu quoque: Dismissing criticism by pointing out hypocrisy ("You say smoking is bad, but you used to smoke")

Ad hominem attacks are particularly problematic because they shift focus from evaluating evidence and reasoning to making personal judgments. While someone's character or circumstances might be relevant in specific contexts (such as evaluating witness credibility in court), they do not automatically invalidate logical arguments or factual claims.

For example, if a convicted thief argues that stealing is morally wrong, their past actions don't make the argument false—the argument should be evaluated on its own merits. This distinction is crucial for logical reasoning: the truth value of a statement is independent of who makes it.