Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Logical Fallacies - Appeal to Emotion

This is the logical fallacy that advertisers use the most.  The basic structure of the argument is that because I invoke a certain emotion, what I say must be true (or my point must be valid).  If you watched the presidential debates, I think both candidates made more appeals to emotion than actual logical statements.



There are lots of varieties of this fallacy.  The appeal to fear uses some sort of threat of a fearful consequence which might be tangentially related to the argument, but often is not really related at all.  Someone could argue that we can't let gay leaders in the boy scouts because our young boys could be influenced by these leaders to become gay, themselves.  This argument plays on fears of gay leaders infecting boys with gayness, as if it were a communicable virus.  It is a real fear, but has no actual merit.  Orientation is not catching.  So the argument is just appealing to fears of imagined danger for young boys.

You can also appeal to other emotions.  Appeal to pity is where you base your argument on the compassion of others.  Somebody could argue that the church should allow gay marriage because think of how gay Mormons must feel, being different, alone, and excluded.  This is clearly an appeal to pity, trying to make an argument by drawing on emotions rather than drawing logical conclusions.

An appeal to pride is when someone argues a point because it reflects well on the other.  For example, "you should support gay marriage because you are a good person, and good people support gay marriage."  The argument is trying to invoke a person's pride to make a point, and is thus fallacious.

This fallacy can take many forms.  For example, a "slippery slope" argument is an attempt to claim that making any compromise will lead to total defeat.  This argument is a form of the appeal to fear.  "First they wanted legitimacy, now they want marriage, then they'll want children, and finally they'll dismantle the institution of the family as we know it.  You give them an inch, they'll take a mile."  These kinds of arguments prey upon fears of the listeners rather than making solid arguments, and are therefore fallacious.

The appeal to emotion is often very effective because we are very emotional creatures, and are far more easily swayed by emotion than by reason.  I think our emotions are very important, and they help us make good judgments, most of the time.  But we have to be careful.  Recognizing the appeal to emotion fallacy can help us avoid using emotions to manipulate others, and avoid allowing ourselves to be manipulated through our emotions.

2 comments:

  1. " This is clearly an appeal to pity, trying to make an argument by drawing on emotions rather than drawing logical conclusions.'
    Okay, I can agree with that. I realize that this is not the point of your post - but I am still left to wonder - what are the logical conclusions in regard to not allowing gay marriage in the temple? You write really clearly I find - so is it possible for you to please write clearly a complete explanation of why gay marriage is not allowed in the Mormon Church?
    On a side note(yes, I do love those side notes) your fellow blogger on here, Jan, quoted a past prophet who clearly stated that whatever happened prior to 1978 regarding equality for blacks in the priesthood should not ever be brought up again, the slate is wiped clean, what was said before no longer matters or in fact, exists. Is that logical? And if so, can we be certain that all of these proclamations regarding same sex marriage in the Mormon Church won't also be wiped clean and as if they never existed at some point in the future?
    I understand that you will probably ignore this comment but I will remain curious about these things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't had a lot of time to keep up this blog lately, but I'm putting together more posts into my queue so it will keep posting even though I'm not as active as I'd like. In that queue I've made an attempt to discuss why I think the Church does not condone marriage between those of the same gender. Watch for it in the future. As for McConkie's quotes, I think you may be misinterpreting them. I don't think he was saying "my previous view never existed, you should forget that I ever held it." Rather, he was saying "My previous writings were wrong. I lacked understanding then. I am so convinced of it, my current view has no trace of the old view, as if it never existed."

      Delete