A fallacy called an appeal to emotion occurs when an argument replaces evidence with emotions.
More precisely, the speaker tries to prove his point by playing with the audience’s emotions instead of presenting proof. “Emotions” is a broad term, it’s reasonable for this fallacy to have its subcategories.
Example 1:
“You want an abortion? Imagine how will your parents will feel when they find out a potential grandchild has been lost. How will you feel after the procedure? It’s a bad feeling knowing you could have been a mother, but you interfered. Therefore abortions are wrong.”
Emotions are a big part of rhetorics. Appeals to emotion can be most often found in political speeches and in advertisements. It’s certainly more useful to appeal to emotions rather than appeal to reason when addressing the public.
Example 1 points out why most appeals to emotion are fallacious. Instead of positive or disproving evidence, emotions are used. Can the value of truth be attributed to statements like this? The speaker does not state anything that can be said to be true or not, he justs plays with the emotions of a pregnant woman that is considering abortion.
In order to get a better understanding of this fallacy, we have to go through its subcategories.
Appeal to pity
Pity is one of the emotions that is used against an audience in order to “prove” a certain point. When an arguer makes this fallacy, we say that the arguer is appealing to pity.
Example 2:
“I’m sorry sir, I never drive this fast. It’s just that my kids are waiting to get picked up. You know how it is, I see you’re a married man. They get so sad when they’re the only kids left waiting at school. Lesson learned sir, no need for a ticket.”
A driver that was speeding, when confronted with a ticket, he lists reasons why the policeman should pity him. Although the speaker makes it sound like that, how late he is, doesn’t have anything to do with the speeding ticket.
This can hardly be called an argument. Although a conclusion is drawn, “No need for a ticket”, it doesn’t contain a premise. The driver is intentionally using an excuse that will evoke pity with the policeman. So, when we try to formally present this fallacy, it looks like this:
- Reasons a,b,c cause pity
- Because of a,b,c, do X
The problem with the appeal to pity is evident. We can’t really say the argument to be true or false, it’s more of an excuse than an argument. Trying to prove a point by trying to evoke pity in the audience may be effective, but not logically correct. However, an appeal to pity can be appropriate for some arguments.
Example 3:
“Artificial Intelligence is sure to come in the future. What we need to look out for is the role we will give it in this society. If we consider artificial intelligences as property and the judicial system considers them as property of man, they’re slaves. Just imagine how an intelligent being made by a man inferior to him will feel if treated like a slave. After all, a real AI will have feelings.”
We can see from Example 3 how an appeal to pity can be without the fallacy. Because AI is a subject that doesn’t offer empirical evidence, we are left to speculations. The speaker raises a problem, property or freedom. In order to attack the position that considers AI as a tool, he appeals to pity.
Appeal to fear/force
Another version of the appeal to emotion fallacy is the appeal to fear. It occurs when the argument states something to be true because it would be scary if it were not true. Or, it states that something should be done because it would be scary if it were not done.
Some call this fallacy appeal to force or ad baculum. Appeal to force because the argument makes some kind of threat, and appeal to fear because it uses the audience’s fear of the threat.
Example 4:
“What the anti-gun people don’t understand is that we are under constant threat. If guns are banned in this country, our homes will get robbed 10 times more often than they are now. We must allow citizens to be able to buy guns.”
In example 4, we see a classic representation of the appeal to fear fallacy. The speaker makes an argument that guns should be allowed and not banned. You would expect evidence in an argument about a serious issue like this, not reasons why should we be afraid.
Same as the appeal to pity, this fallacy doesn’t have the structure of a typical argument. In fact, it’s not even an argument. The speaker in Example 4, reaches a conclusion but no premise or evidence is provided. More so, the fear of robberies doesn’t have anything to do with gun laws.
Logic form:
- Because of a,b,c we should fear not X
- X should happen
There are instances where an appeal to force will not be fallacious. Although the argument will still not prove anything, it is allowed because it takes the discussion further and makes it more productive.
Example 5:
“I understand that most citizens value their privacy. However, we must accept that some of our rights to privacy have to be violated if we want a safe country. In order to stop mass shootings and terrorist attacks, we must have some access to information you consider private.”
Example 6:
“We, as a civilization are facing a threat that we caused. Because this is our doing we can also undo this. Climate change is real and it will ruin us if we don’t change our ways of energy consumption. You can’t even imagine the horrors that are about to come if nothing is done.”
As you can see, the examples address real threats and call to action. However, an argument isn’t really made. It’s an appeal to fear of what might happen. So, whether it’s a fallacy or not depends on what conclusion we reach and how it is connected with the reasons of fear that are listed.
Emotive ad populum
In essence, the appeal to the majority is not one of the appeals to emotion. However, if it appeals to the emotions of a group of people it becomes one of its subcategories.
To make things clearer let’s define the ad populum. An appeal to the majority is a fallacy that occurs when argument states something to be true because many believe it to be true. So, when the ad populum appeals to the emotions of the group, we have an emotive ad populum.
Example 7:
“Most atheists feel like Jehovah’s Witnesses are hostile when they do door duty. Therefore, Jehovah’s witnesses are a hostile religious group.”
Example 7 shows how the ad populum can be an appeal to emotion. The speaker reaches a conclusion that Jehovah’s witnesses are hostile because most atheists have strong negative feelings against them.
Appeal to anger
We consider an argument to be an appeal to anger when someone’s rage or hatred is used as evidence. This fallacy also falls under the appeals to emotion. Obviously, anger is an emotion.
Example 8:
“Did you see how angry that man was? He was saying the government is out to kill him. Looking at his anger, I thought it must be true.”
Example 9:
“I’m tired of these kids raised with technology taking our jobs. What do they know about hard work? I feel hatred for this society that made a situation like this possible. Let us form a political party.”
The appeal to anger can take two different forms. Either it can attribute truth or false to something because someone was angry or it can call to action because someone is angry.
In Example 8, the speaker concludes that the government was hunting the angry man based on the fact that the man was angry about it. Of course, it may be true but anger cannot be a premise for a conclusion. The possibility of the man being insane is still possible. Or, he was just playing a prank.
In Example 9, the fallacy is more intrusive. The speaker convinces his coworkers to form a party using his anger and the audience anger towards technology. The appeal to anger is a way to manipulate an audience in order to get what you want. Although it can be effective, reason and evidence should lead us to action, not anger.
Conclusion:
These were the appeals to emotion. Each fallacy plays with a certain emotion in order to prove their point. Evidence is not offered, and with some exceptions the emotion used has no clear connection with the conclusion reached. It’s an absurd fallacy that doesn’t even form a logical argument, its sole purpose is to manipulate.