Fallacy

20 Personal Attacks: "ad hominem"
Damning an opponent is a common and odious method of damning the source (see #19). Personal attacks are effective because it is difficult to credit a man who has been tarred and feathered with obloquy. There is no argument easier to construct or harder to combat than character assassination, and this may be the reason personal attacks are so commonly on the lips of ignorance and demagogy. The armory of personal abuse is inexhaustible: nobody finds it easy to forget the doubts engendered when a man is represented as being dishonest, cowardly, crafty, greedy, perverted, ^conceited, incompetent, arrogant.
How, then, can one take account of the character and motives of parties to an argument without falling into fallacy? Personal considerations are certainly relevant for judging the reliability of a man, his willingness to tell the truth. If judgment of a man holds him unreliable, then his statements are rightly suspect. But there is a difference between "suspect" and "false." And there is a difference between taking into account the reliability of a witness and blindly assuming that personalities dispose of issues.
EXAMPLE COMMENT
An alderman is indicted for payroll padding. Interviewed by a newspaper, he declares, "Everybody knows that Jones dug up this charge and that he has been out to get me for a long time. But I'm not worried. The people won't forget that I've been plugging for better schools and parks, while Jones's great public service to date was in getting mixed up in that Sunnyacre real estate scandal." The alderman is resorting to personalities to becloud the issue. He does this positively by reminding us of his own alleged public service and negatively by discrediting Jones with allegations of bad motives and of involvement in a scandal. Whether true or false, none of these answer the charge.
Witness Paul: "My objection to the proposed legislation is that it sanctions depriving a person of his job without informing the person concerned of the nature or source of the evidence against him. Under these conditions there is no proper chance to answer the charges."
Senator Peter: "You are a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, whjrli defends Communists?"
Witness Paul: "I do belong to that organization."
Senator Peter: "And you expect this committee to give weight to your testimony?"
There is no reason to suppose membership in the American Civil Liberties Union has any bearing on the individual's willingness or capacity to tell the truth. Clearly, Senator Peter's technique is to tar both Witness Paul and the American Civil Liberties Union with the brush "defends Communists" -- an action expected to evoke general disapproval. The example, incidentally, also illustrates the trick of the half-truth. The statement "The American Civil Liberties Union defends Communists" is true -- so far as it goes. But the Civil Liberties Union does not defend Communists as Communists, and it also defends on principle Republicans, Democrats, persons seeking to become naturalized citizens, or anyone else whose case presents an important civil liberties issue under our Constitution. Senator Peter has dropped consideration of the issue to indulge in the type of attack which newspapers characterize as the "smear" technique.
A foreman is fired by the XYZ Canning Co. He gives a newspaper interview charging unfair labor practices in the cannery. A cannery official declares, "The foreman is sore about being fired. He is a troublemaker and was once convicted of embezzlement." The reference to the foreman as a "troublemaker" can be dismissed as a vague personal charge designed to create prejudice. His alleged spite and previous dishonesty bear on his reliability in telling the truth. This should be considered as character evidence; such evidence can justify not accepting his story without further confirmation. Notice that the idea of "not accepting" is not equivalent to "rejecting." After all, the foreman may be telling the truth even if he is a vindictive rogue. The problem is, then, to find out whether the unreliable foreman was telling the truth on this occasion. This can only be done by seeking more evidence about the facts. Those who adopt the simple solution of reasoning to themselves, "The foreman is a rascal, so we will disregard everything he says," are the victims of prejudice.

It might be remarked that lawyers call this the "bad man" argument. Juries seem inclined to believe that if a defendant has a previous criminal record he must be guilty of the present charge. The fact of previous conviction can be brought out legally only if the defendant testifies in his own behalf, when it becomes admissible as "character evidence." Because of the bad man possibilities, counsel sometimes decide not to allow a defendant of unsavory record to take the stand in his own defense.

EXAMPLE	COMMENT
An alderman is indicted for payroll padding. Interviewed by a newspaper, he declares, "Everybody knows that Jones dug up this charge and that he has been out to get me for a long time. But I'm not worried. The people won't forget that I've been plugging for better schools and parks, while Jones's great public service to date was in getting mixed up in that Sunnyacre real estate scandal."	The alderman is resorting to personalities to becloud the issue. He does this positively by reminding us of his own alleged public service and negatively by discrediting Jones with allegations of bad motives and of involvement in a scandal. Whether true or false, none of these answer the charge.
Witness Paul: "My objection to the proposed legislation is that it sanctions depriving a person of his job without informing the person concerned of the nature or source of the evidence against him. Under these conditions there is no proper chance to answer the charges." Senator Peter: "You are a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, whjrli defends Communists?" Witness Paul: "I do belong to that organization." Senator Peter: "And you expect this committee to give weight to your testimony?"	There is no reason to suppose membership in the American Civil Liberties Union has any bearing on the individual's willingness or capacity to tell the truth. Clearly, Senator Peter's technique is to tar both Witness Paul and the American Civil Liberties Union with the brush "defends Communists" -- an action expected to evoke general disapproval. The example, incidentally, also illustrates the trick of the half-truth. The statement "The American Civil Liberties Union defends Communists" is true -- so far as it goes. But the Civil Liberties Union does not defend Communists as Communists, and it also defends on principle Republicans, Democrats, persons seeking to become naturalized citizens, or anyone else whose case presents an important civil liberties issue under our Constitution. Senator Peter has dropped consideration of the issue to indulge in the type of attack which newspapers characterize as the "smear" technique.
A foreman is fired by the XYZ Canning Co. He gives a newspaper interview charging unfair labor practices in the cannery. A cannery official declares, "The foreman is sore about being fired. He is a troublemaker and was once convicted of embezzlement."	The reference to the foreman as a "troublemaker" can be dismissed as a vague personal charge designed to create prejudice. His alleged spite and previous dishonesty bear on his reliability in telling the truth. This should be considered as character evidence; such evidence can justify not accepting his story without further confirmation. Notice that the idea of "not accepting" is not equivalent to "rejecting." After all, the foreman may be telling the truth even if he is a vindictive rogue. The problem is, then, to find out whether the unreliable foreman was telling the truth on this occasion. This can only be done by seeking more evidence about the facts. Those who adopt the simple solution of reasoning to themselves, "The foreman is a rascal, so we will disregard everything he says," are the victims of prejudice.