INFORMAL LOGIC XY.2, Spring 1993 It's All Very Well for You to Talk! Situationally Disqualifying Ad Hominem Attacks ERIK C.W. KRABBE Rijksuniversiteit Groningen DOUGLAS WALTON University of Winnipeg Key Words: Fallacies; argumentation; ad hominem cates in her argument is a policy or opinion arguments; personal attack; bias; poisoning the well that is inconsistent with commitments de­ argument: character attack; pragmatic inconsistency. termined by her own personal circum­ Abstract: The situationally disqualifying ad stances. The first kind of argument is hominem attack is an argumentative move in criti­ called the 'abusive' or direct ad hominem cal dialogue whereby one participant points out and the second is called the circumstantial certain features in his adversary's personal situa­ type of ad hominem argument. Some au­ tion that are claimed to make it inappropriate for thors use other labels, such as tu quoque or this adversary to take a particular point of view, to argue in a particular way, or to launch certain crit­ poisoning the well to characterize types of icisms. In this paper, we discuss some examples personal attack. Sometimes such labels of this way of arguing. Other types of ad hominem function merely as another name (tu argumentation are discussed as well and compared quoque for the circumstantial type, for in­ with the situationally disqualifying type. The so­ stance), sometimes as names for SUbtypes, called Houtlosser Dilemma highlights the danger or for alleged new types that do not fit in of unconditionally condoning ad hominem argu­ ments. We propose a classification of ad hominem, with either of the two standard types. and a more restrictive use of the term 'circumstan­ Indeed, it is not hard to think of cases tial'. Finally, we discuss whether ad hominem ar­ of personal attack that are not easily de­ guments are (always?) to be rejected as fallacious. scribed as either "abusive" or circumstan­ tial. In this paper we want to introduce and briefly discuss one particular type of case 1.Introductionl that seems to have been neglected thus far. The following example may suffice as a first The argumentum ad hominem or "ar­ indication of what we are after in this paper: gument against the person" is the kind of argument whereby one participant in a dia­ CASE I [Holland, December 1990J A re­ tired major general argues in front logue uses a personal attack to attempt to of his relatives that the Dutch gov­ discredit or refute the tenets or the argu­ ernment must give more substan­ ment of another participant. There are at tial support to the allied efforts in least two standard or common ways to do the Gulf Area. "We ought to send this, and both of these ways have been ground forces," so he claims. His widely recognized in logic textbooks as grandson retorts: "It's all very types of ad hominem arguments; One way well for you to talk, grandpa! You don't have to go there." is to attack the person directly, by arguing that she has a bad character, especially a The grandson's point (if he has a point!) is bad character for veracity, and cannot that grandpa's actual situation, his being a re­ therefore be trusted to be sincere or to be a tired person who will not be sent out anyhow, reliable participant in the dialogue. The disqualifies him (morally?) as a defender other way is to claim that what she advo- of the present point of view. We shall 80 E. C. W. Krabbe and D. Walton shortly present some other examples of this Case 2 shows how a circumstantial ad type of personal attack. But first we shall hominem argument may underly, and shift briefly survey the other types of ad hominem into, a direct personal attack. It is easy to so that we may assign our type, which may imagine that, but for the chairperson's in­ be called situationally disqual(fying ad terference, this direct attack could have hominem its proper place among them. We continued by further alleged examples of hope, in this paper, to make clear what is the politician's lack of justice. distinctive about the species, and to start the A third variant of the ad hominem ar­ discussion about its fallaciousness as con­ gument is the bias type of attack, where tingent upon different contexts of dialogue.2 one arguer claims that the other is not an impartial or honest proponent of her point of view because she has personal commit­ 2. Varieties of Ad Hominem ments or interests at stake, or something to gain, financially or otherwise, by support­ It is not at all easy to classify ad hom­ ing that point of view. inem arguments by sharp and unambigu­ CASE 3 a. In the panel debate of Case 2 the 3 ous criteria. One can see already that the journalist remarks that this poli­ direct (abusive) and the circumstantial tician is just following the party types overlap in some cases. Often, for ex­ line. ample, the circumstantial argument is used b. The journalist remarks that her as a kind of lead-in attack which is then ex­ adversary's point of view will tended or developed into a direct ad hom­ "no doubt gain him a lot of votes." inem attack. In such a case, the arguer's c. The journalist points out that the personal circumstances are said to be in politician has just bought an connict with his argument, implying that enormous quantity of stock of the arguer is therefore dishonest, insincere, an important arms industry that hypocritical, or otherwise deficient in stands to make profit in case of character for veracity. war. d. The journalist urges that the pol­ CASE 2 [December 1990] In a panel debate itician. being a member of his about whether or not, ultimately. party, can never objectively as­ force should be used to enforce sess the pro's and con's of the the U.N. resolutions about Kuwait, matter. a politician defends the point of view that this may be necessary to This type of personal attack, which can of­ maintain international legal order ten seriously damage the credibility of and justice. His adversary, a jour­ one's adversary, is distinct from either of nalist, opposes this view. "You the two standard types. Unlike with the di­ weren't talking this way as the U.N. rect (abusive) personal attack there need were passing resolutions about the not be an assault on one's adversary's char­ Palestinians. Whence this sudden concern for international law?" acter. Of course there may be mergers She then expands this argument, with, or shifts into, the direct type of ad insisting on the parallelism be­ hominem: It is not hard to imagine how tween the two cases, and on the Case 3c could develop into pure abuse. politician's complete lack of con­ But, with the bias type of ad hominem, cern for the enforcement of previ­ character, whether character in general, or ous U.N. resolutions. "In view of this," she concludes, "we may more specifically character for veracity, is wonder whether you are the one to not the issue. What is under attack is one's teach us a lesson about justice." At adversary's aptitude to be a serious and that moment the chair stops her. sincere discussant in this particular It's All Very Well for You to Talk! 81 dialogue. Circumstances are adduced that inconsistency in the arguer's position. Part would lead to doubt about this aptitude. In of this position consists of propositions this respect the bias type is similar to the that were explicitly or implicitly asserted circumstantial type. But in another respect within the dialogue. If nothing more is the bias type is rather the opposite of the used, one would not, usually, speak of a circumstantial type. Whereas in the cir­ circumstantial ad hominem. Pressing a cumstantial ad hominem one tries to con­ man with the consequences of what he strue the position of the other party as himself, within the same context of dia­ inconsistent, a bias type of attack, para­ logue, has granted to be the case may, ap­ doxically, decries the overwhelming con­ propriately, be called a Lockean ad sistency that obtains between a hominem (after John Locke, who described discussant's affiliations and interests and the genre). A Lockean ad hominem is in it­ his expressed point of view. self an impeccable way of arguing, even A particularly harsh subspecies of the though defeating one's adversary in this bias type is exemplified by Case 3d. This is way may lead one to an exaggerated esti­ the poisoning the well type of ad hominem, mate of the solidity of one's own point of where the arguer attacked is said to be so view. It is typical for the circumstantial ad dogmatic, fanatical, or dishonest that noth­ hominem, however, that part of the propo­ ing he might say can ever be trusted as reli­ sitions that constitute an arguer's alleged able. This is an extreme form of ad hominem position are inferred from circumstances. attack which appears to leave the attacked This may be done in several ways: (i) one party no room available at all for defence may adduce assertions made by the same or further participation in the dialogue. adversary in other circumstances (Case 4a, The implication is that this person is so below); (ii) one may adduce assertions that slippery or duplicitous that you can never were never explicitly made by one's adver­ really engage in a serious discussion with sary himself, but to which he appears to be him at all.