Ad Hominem Circumstantial Fallacy

Argumentum Ad Hominem, Circumstantial

The ad hominem circumstantial fallacy, like the abusive version, seeks to attack the arguer rather than the argument. Instead of insulting the arguer directly, it attempts to discredit the position by attributing impure or selfish motives to its proponent. For example:

1. You should not listen to Professor Miller’s arguments for faculty salary increases. The only reason he is arguing for a pay raise is because he himself will benefit from it.

In this example we see that, rather than his actual arguments being examined or critiqued, Professor Miller himself is being attacked. It claims that Miller has selfish motives for arguing in a certain manner, and because of this his arguments should be dismissed. The circumstantial fallacy does not only attack arguers and dismiss their specific arguments, as in the example above, but it can also be used to discredit any position or stance that one might hold. For example:

2. Harry was quite sure that Julie had only accepted his invitation to dinner because she felt sorry for him. This was probably the only reason she had been friendly with him in the first place.

3. It is obvious that Aunt Sue’s Christmas gift to Emma was given with ulterior motives. She gave her an airline gift certificate, but she might as well have just asked Emma to come babysit.

4. I will not accept the administration’s arguments for war. Clearly, the only reason the President wants to be in the Middle East is to secure natural resources.

These examples attribute motives and use them to dismiss arguments or actions. The dinner and gift examples concern interpretations of behavior; the salary and war examples reject arguments without examining their support. We need to remember that not all arguments are presented with ulterior motives and that arguments should, if possible, be analyzed by themselves, apart from their sources.