Logical Fallacies IV - Begging the Question and Appeals to Emotion

At first glance, these two logical fallacies don't seem to have much to do with each other.

When you beg the question, you assume something has been established or proved, according to my trusty dictionary. The way a logician would define the begging the question fallacy is that the premises include the claim or assumption that the conclusion is true, without providing any evidence or actual argument. The result is a circular argument, taking for granted what it's supposed to prove. In other words, it's no argument at all.

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

When someone questions whether a law is right, an official will often say, 'It's right because it's the law.' When an official's conduct is questioned, the official might say (and I've heard it said), 'It's ethical because our ethics code doesn't say it's wrong.' This sort of legalism is common in municipal government, and is often used to put a stop to discussion.

Or when a police officer is accused of having done something wrong, someone will say in his defense, 'Our police wouldn't do a thing like that!'

Here's another example: 'Affirmative action is wrong, because you cannot fix one sort of injustice by committing another form of injustice.' It is assumed here that affirmative action is unjust, in order to show that it is unjust. But such "arguments" work very well.

One reason they work is the way they appeal to our emotions: to our belief that laws are right, to our belief in our police, and to strong feelings people have about affirmative action.

But where the two kinds of logical fallacy most clearly intersect is with what are known as 'question-begging epithets,' for example, referring to someone accused of a crime as a criminal, or referring to a fetus as a baby, or saying 'no right-thinking American.' These references both assume conclusions and appeal to our emotions, such as our fears and our patriotism.

The appeals to emotion fallacy is related, but not quite the same. Here, there is no logical connection between the premise and the conclusion. A typical example is the defense lawyer pointing out that his client has an innocent face, implying that, therefore, he can't be guilty. This is not quite the same thing as the prosecutor referring to the same person as 'criminal,' but the illicit purpose and the emotional effect are exactly the same.

The appeals to emotion fallacy is the most baldly manipulative of all logical fallacies, which are all, intentionally or not, manipulative. Often appealing to emotions is intended to manipulate for innocent reasons, such as a coach getting her players all worked up before a game. No one expects a rational argument in this situation.

When you are involved in municipal politics, arguments are what you expect. When instead you get appeals to emotion ' positive or negative ' then you have unethical manipulation.

An example of this in the local government world would be, 'If you love our city, you have to vote for [or against] this development.' Or 'We can't let our kids down! Vote for the budget!'

What do you do when faced with an appeal to emotion? You can respond directly: 'Our love for our city has nothing to do with the development you're arguing for [or against]. Stick to the facts.' Or you can ignore the appeal to emotion and try to counter it with reason: 'The development would cause serious traffic jams [or would bring our taxes down by 20% overnight].' Or you can do both.

What do you do when faced with a begging the question fallacy? The choices are pretty much the same. Respond directly: 'We would hope our police wouldn't do that, but we can't assume anything. We have to have an investigation.' Ignore it and counter with reason: 'An accusation has been made, and it must be taken seriously. We must give citizens the same respect we give police officers.' Or you can do both.

Other Logical Fallacies Blog Entries
The Straw Man Wears Camouflage
Ad Populum Defenses
The Ad Hominem Attack