So I was thinking the other day about the logical fallacy Ad Hominen attacks. I am sure most people have heard the term Ad Hominen but in case you haven't an ad hominen attack basically goes something like, "This person is a jerk, he or she does x, y or z and therefore their argument is wrong." But I was wondering doesn't it work both ways, isn't there a logical fallacy of reverse ad hominem that would go something like. "This person is a wonderful and amazing person, he or she does x, y, or z and therefore their argument is correct." I have been seeing this type of argument being used more and more so I would be interested to see if people do think it is a logical fallacy and if so do we have a name we can give this kind of argument so during debates we can scream it at the other person when we see it being used.
We actually talked about how this kind of bias influences policy decision when it comes to lobbyists in my interest groups class on Monday. I was actually thinking "kind of like reverse ad hominem" at the time. I'll try to remember to ask my prof is there's a term for this (or just look at my notes) tomorrow
You really do see this all the time. Their works/goals are successful in some sort of morally or physically beneficial way, so they automatically become a great person. Hemingway is a good example. Great writer, massive dick (or he wishes he was one.) In any case, while his personality does not negate the genius of his writing, his writing does not negate the failures in his personality. Edit- Misread the OP, sorry. I do see this a lot as well, especially in my now Economics class. It mostly goes along the lines of, as an example, "Ron Paul supports Gay Rights, thus the rest of his policies, even economic ones, will be just as progressive and good for the country." While the classic Ad Hominem is used against someone like Rick Perry.
I agree that it seems logically fallacious. It also depends on what way you mean by logical. If one can't come up with a counter argument to their opponents argument it would seem foolish to attempt to form an opinion on something without retaining first, prior knowledge on the subject and second, the ability to form an argument that is intelligible and well thought out. It would seem more intelligent to merely point out faults in your opponent to make them seem less credible than explain why you think a,b,c because of x,y,z. Why yes I do think one can apply a pro hominem to help their argument it seems to me that human beings tend to focus on one another's vices rather than their virtues. It seems to more applicable to use the arguments full of ethos or pathos rather than logos. Human beings are creatures of emotion not logic. An example of this is how children ostracize each other at an early age by using what's wrong with them, such as they pick their nose, wet their bed or are just a "stupid head" and yet the innocence, kindness, unconditional love of the child is ignored. I find both a pro and ad hominem to be logically fallacious sometimes and I would also state that ad hominems are more paid attention to than pro hominems. That's why you see more political ads in America attacking a candidate by who they are or what they've done in their personal not political life. That or scare tactics. A person's character doesn't directly determine whether a person's arguments, thoughts or opinion are correct or not. The only way one could discredit someone else's ideas based on an ad hominem is if one made a judgement of someone's intelligence, mental state or knowledge of the subject. This could work in reverse by basing validity off of a pro hominem based on the same judgments. However, from what I understood from reading about both topics it seem like a judgement based on the character of a person rather than the thought process, logic and how someone forms an argument. I would suspect a psychology major would be able to explain more of these things to me so I would have a better understanding off both hominems.
It certainly does happen a lot. Making an idol out of someone makes the use of 'pro hominems' a way of controlling people easily. It was like this in nearly all medieval monarchies and it was DEFINITELY like this with the pope. For instance everyone on these forums like Stalin's video's. So whatever Stalin says is far more likely to get someone to change their frame of mind or less likely for someone to attempt to refute that argument as it would be unpopular to do so. Unrelated events somehow lending credibility is just normal to human beings for some reason.
I am extremly confused of what we are taling about, but whatever we are talking about I am against it.
