Fallacy of the day: Appeal to Emotion/Pity

[sarahmichigan]

When pro-lifers/anti-abortionists put up big photos of mangled fetuses, they're appealing to your emotions/pity, rather than arguing about abortion law based on the facts.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtopity.html

This is a fallacy I think it's really easy to commit. I've been guilty of this a bit myself when appealing to your feelings of pity for small children when I advocate mandating childhood vaccines. Including a bit of emotional appeal is a long-standing tactic in debates, political speeches, and in persuaive speaking generally. It can be an effective technique, but that doesn't mean you're making a logical argument.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_earthshine_/]

We should base our beliefs upon reason, rather than on emotion, if we want our beliefs to be true. ... it doesn't seem like beliefs always have to be based in "reason" to necessarily be true.

I think you bring up an important concept here. I'll take it a step further and (as best i remember it) share another quote that really spoke to me:

"Just because something isn't true doesn't mean it's a not a good thing to believe in."

Beliefs serve a purpose, and often that purpose is not best served by beliefs being "true", as people usually think of "true".

...but all that is a matter of opinion. Some people do want their beliefs to be "true", and that's fair, but they also must remember this, which i believe is fact:

Every belief is based in faith at some level, even if it be that of the core assumptions of a logical process. When we say something is "true" or "fact", all we really mean is that the faith at the base of our deductions is a faith very likely to be shared by fellow rational people. Truth, then, is essentially "cultural": the agreed-upon assumptions and axioms upon which logical reason is based are nothing more than a set of faiths that are derived from ideas and observations considered universal to this, the rational portion of our human culture.

So, while it is entirely fair for a person to wish their beliefs to be "true", it is essential (back to my opinion now) that they know what this means. Limiting one's beliefs to what is "true" seems only to mean that one is limiting them to what is "accepted". For contexts wherein it benefits us to have common beliefs with others (and there are many), there is obviously great benefit here. However, there are many contexts in which this commonality is not paramount, and also, there are tools other than commonality of belief that allow us to understand others and collaborate with them meaningfully. The desire to have one's beliefs be "true", therefore, should be checked with an eye toward exactly what contexts and purposes those beliefs serve. For many of us, there may be many situations in which the truly desired gain is best served by not limiting our beliefs via this requirement.

...or such is what i believe. :)


Also, not arguing... just thinking. Thank you for spurring the thoughts for me!