Submitted by phileconomicus t3_ybn3sp in philosophy
Dark_Clark t1_itit44e wrote
Reply to comment by MSGRiley in A Proposal to Price Everything in the Currency of Child Lives Not Saved by phileconomicus
It actually isn’t. It isn’t using an appeal to emotion in place of the argument. It’s appealing to emotion to communicate the costs of our choices in a way that people can understand intuitively.
When you make a choice, you may not understand its full weight because the costs are too abstract. “If you buy this X pounds of carbon dioxide is released” or whatever. Even though that information may be 100% correct, it may not be in a form such that the consequences of your actions will be communicated to you in a way that you natively understand. For instance, even if it’s true that such amount of CO2 will kill Y many children, you may not realize this if the information isn’t given to you in a form that will make this apparent to you.
Of course this example I’ve used is contrived and the causal mechanism for unloading carbon isn’t simply buying a product, but I think the point I’ve made should be clear enough.
MSGRiley t1_itjg63g wrote
>For instance, even if it’s true that such amount of CO2 will kill Y many children, you may not realize this if the information isn’t given to you in a form that will make this apparent to you.
The argument being made is that CO2 will kill children, when there's no indication that this is the case at all. While one might weigh purchasing a product vs releasing CO2 (which is a very strange way of looking at it, as the product is already created), we bypass the scientific argument around how CO2 kills children and instead appeal to your emotions.
You may as well say "For every time you vote Democrat, you kill a child. How many children are you willing to kill to satisfy your own need to feel like a social justice warrior hero?"
it's an appeal to emotion.
Dark_Clark t1_itjl0q2 wrote
You misread my comment. I was worried you’d take this route; that’s why I put my last paragraph in. It’s to show the reasoning even though I’m aware the example has flaws. I’m too tired to come up with one that will be easier to understand.
It’s an appeal to emotion, but it’s not used in place of an argument. That is, it’s not fallacious. You seem to be suggesting that the writer is using the emotional bit in place of an argument demonstrating that such actions do actually kill children. If you think that that’s what’s happening, you’re misunderstanding the point. That is not at all what he’s saying. The “scientific” argument is a premise on which his argument relies. You can dispute that premise, but he’s not arguing that this premise is true using an appeal to emotion.
MSGRiley t1_itjrf97 wrote
> he’s not arguing that this premise is true using an appeal to emotion.
He is. He's using it as a premise for his argument. SINCE purchasing products have a cost in children's lives, we SHOULD label products in those terms to correct the gap in knowledge of the consumer, is essentially what he's saying.
Instead of arguing THAT purchasing products has a cost in children's lives, we're directly appealing to the emotional element of "save the children". Another poster put up some kind of poem or quote much more effectively putting forth the sentiment of the article. How many rivers and towns for progress, the false dichotomy of capitalism vs the Earth, etc.
We've skipped over the argument and gone directly to how many children are you going to kill with your consumerism.
Dark_Clark t1_itju1dm wrote
“He’s using it as a premise for his argument.” Yes. Exactly. He’s not arguing that such premise is true, though. That’s the whole point. He’s starting with that premise. Which is not the same as arguing for it.
You are actually making my point for me. We’ve skipped over that argument because that’s not what the article is aimed at. If you have an issue with the premise, that’s different from saying that the argument relying on the premise is using a fallacy. Even then, he doesn’t even give an argument for that premise; he just assumes it.
Because he gives no argument supporting the premise, the fact that you think he made an appeal to emotion to defend it says that you are finding things that you either have bad reading comprehension skills or you’re a mind-reader of some sorts. You’re just assuming he made an appeal to emotion in an argument that is no where to be found. Either way, if you don’t understand why you’re wrong yet, you’re not going to.
MSGRiley t1_itjv42m wrote
> If you have an issue with the premise, that’s different from saying that the argument relying on the premise is using a fallacy.
This is going to be my last post on this because one of us is having an issue understanding this. He's not saying that appeals to emotion, in the abstract, are a good way to motivate people.
He's saying specifically that we should couch purchasing (and capitalism itself) in terms of dead children. It is his choice of using dead children that is appeal to emotion. He is saying, not only is it justified, it's righteous.
There are a lot of things wrong with the argument. False premise, false dichotomy, etc, but the choice to couch everything in terms of "dead children" is, on its face, an appeal to emotion.
You said your peace, I said mine. As far as I'm concerned, we're done.
Dark_Clark t1_itjvxbg wrote
I’m getting the last word because I’m correct about this. I know it’s an appeal to emotion, but it’s not used instead of an argument. That’s what an appeal to emotion fallacy is. I’m not even saying this argument is good; I’m pointing out that you’re misidentifying a fallacy. Goodbye.
MSGRiley t1_itjx21z wrote
I'm getting the last word because I'm petty.
You're wrong, it absolutely is attempting to push people to action out of an appeal to emotion. This is how appeal to emotion works all the time. Did you see an argument for "purchasing equals dead children"? You did not. What you saw was because purchasing equals dead children, we should....
That is appeal to emotion. And I posted last therefore I am correct. /s
Dark_Clark t1_itjxz45 wrote
Yes, it is trying to get people to act out of an appeal to emotion. But that’s not a fallacy. His argument, if you understand it, is about using emotion to drive action. But that isn’t fallacious. “We should do this because people respond to emotion” isn’t using an emotional appeal to make the arguments, it is making an argument about emotional appeals.
I’ve repeated this over and over and you still don’t get it. You are just completely ignoring the whole point of everything I’ve said.
“Did you see an argument for purchasing equals deal children?” No, because, like I’ve said over and over, the argument assumes that to be true already, whether it is or not. Read my comments again if that helps.
MSGRiley t1_itjyblx wrote
>I’m getting the last word because I’m correct about this.
Seriously, I was just testing to see if you were going to respond to my "last word" response.
>No, because, like I’ve said over and over, the argument assumes that to be true already, whether it is or not.
Which is how appeal to emotion works. It takes the focus off of "is this true" and puts it on "out of an abundance of caution surrounding our children, we should do this thing, because THINK OF THE CHILDREN".
Every, single appeal to emotion argument works this way.
OK. Have the last word.
Edit: for clarity, what I'm saying is that there's no effective difference between replacing the argument for something with an appeal to emotion and using it as an unproven premise.
Dark_Clark t1_itjznho wrote
Yes, they typically work that way, but again, this article doesn’t have to deal with the premise explicitly in order to not commit a fallacy. “Look they didn’t explicitly defend a premise, therefore they must be trying to pull a fast one! Didn’t fool me because I can identify fallacies correctly!”
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments