Request new password

 
RSS
Appeals to Motive
All > Sections > Illogic Primer > Appeals to Motive (5)
Definition
The fallacies in this section have in common the practise of appealing to emotions or other psychological factors. In this way, they do not provide reasons for belief.
Appeal to Force
The reader is told that unpleasant consequences will follow if they do not agree with the author. Also known as argumentum ad baculum.
Examples:
  1. You had better agree that the new company policy is the best bet if you expect to keep your job.
  2. NAFTA is wrong, and if you don't vote against NAFTA then we will vote you out of office.
Proof: Identify the threat and the proposition and argue that the threat is unrelated to the truth or falsity of the proposition.
Appeal to Pity
The reader is told to agree to the proposition because of the pitiful state of the author. Also known as argumentum ad misericordian.
Examples:
  1. How can you say that's out? It was so close, and besides, I'm down ten games to two.
  2. We hope you'll accept our recommendations. We spent the last three months working extra time on it
Proof: Identify the proposition and the appeal to pity and argue that the pitiful state of the arguer has nothing to do with the truth of the proposition.
Appeal to Consequence
The author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false. Also known as argumentum ad consequentiam.
Examples:
  1. You can't agree that evolution is true, because if it were, then we would be no better than monkeys and apes.
  2. You must believe in God, for otherwise life would have no meaning. (Perhaps, but it is equally possible that since life has no meaning that God does not exist.)
Proof: Identify the consequences and argue that what we want to be the case does not affect what is in fact the case.
Prejudicial Language
Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.
Examples:
  1. Right thinking Canadians will agree with me that we should have another free vote on capital punishment.
  2. A reasonable person would agree that our income statement is too low.
  3. Senator Turner claims that the new tax rate will reduce the deficit. (Here, the use of "claims" implies that what Turner says is false.)
  4. The proposal is likely to be resisted by the bureaucrats on Parliament Hill. (Compare this to: The proposal is likely to be rejected by officials on Parliament Hill.)
Proof: Identify the prejudicial terms used (eg. "Right thinking Canadians" or "A reasonable person"). Show that disagreeing with the conclusion does not make a person "wrong thinking" or "unreasonable".