Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, has kindly agreed to allow the text of his work to appear here on ramdac.org in electronic form. It remains © Copyright 1995 Michael C. Labossiere, with distribution restrictions. If you have questions or comments about this work, please direct them either to me at ramdac@ramdac.org or to Dr. Labossiere (ontologist@aol.com).


Terms

Introduction 
Ad Hominem 
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque 
Appeal to Authority 
Appeal to Belief 
Appeal to Common Practice 
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief 
Appeal to Emotion 
Appeal to Fear 
Appeal to Flattery 
Appeal to Novelty 
Appeal to Pity 
Appeal to Popularity 
Appeal to Ridicule 
Appeal to Spite 
Appeal to Tradition 
Bandwagon 
Begging the Question 
Biased Sample 
Burden of Proof 
Circumstantial Ad Hominem   Composition 
Confusing Cause and Effect 
Division 
False Dilemma 
Gambler's Fallacy 
Genetic Fallacy 
Guilt By Association 
Hasty Generalization 
Ignoring A Common Cause 
Middle Ground 
Misleading Vividness 
Personal Attack 
Poisoning the Well 
Post Hoc 
Questionable Cause 
Red Herring 
Relativist Fallacy 
Slippery Slope 
Special Pleading 
Spotlight 
Straw Man 
Two Wrongs Make A Right 

Circumstantial Ad Hominem

Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
  3. Therefore claim X is false.

  1. Person A makes claim X.
  2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
  3. Therefore X is false.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."

There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false.

Examples of Circumstantial Ad Hominem

  1. "She asserts that we need more military spending, but that is false, since she is only saying it because she is a Republican."

  2. "I think that we should reject what Father Jones has to say about the ethical issues of abortion because he is a Catholic priest. After all, Father Jones is required to hold such views."

  3. "Of course the Senator from Maine opposes a reduction in naval spending. After all, Bath Ironworks, which produces warships, is in Maine."

  4. "Bill claims that tax breaks for corporations increases development. Of course, Bill is the CEO of a corporation."
© Copyright 1995 Michael C. Labossiere, with distribution restrictions.