« Majority of Americans are Pro-Life | Main | Freedom of Speech? »

Mainstream Emotive Reasoning

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that lead to unsupported conclusions. Many are easy to identify and are either refuted or avoided. However, other fallacies have become mainstream and are used to support a variety of beliefs and assertions. One such class of fallacy, that is often overlooked, is the appeal to emotions (emotive fallacies) rather than reason or substance. In this regard, prejudicial language is often used to attach a value or moral goodness to a particular proposition.

For example, “any reasonable person would have to agree …” implies that disagreement is unreasonable without any substantive argument. Sen. John Kerry recently used this argument when he stated, “'I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can't account for his own service in the National Guard.”

Similarly, statements by Kerry’s campaign in response to Vice President Dick Cheney’s criticism of Kerry’s position on defense are emotive in nature: "The Vice-President's shameful remarks about a decorated war hero like John who risked his life trying to save the lives of others make it clear that the Bush campaign has no problem stomping on the truth." This response, which has been widely publicized, never dealt with the substantive issue raised by the Bush campaign.

Reuters labeled Vice President Cheney’s remarks as an “assault” and Bush’s criticism of Kerry’s voting record as an “attack”. Both are prejudicial and evoke particular feelings without providing information.

Republicans make the same fallacious arguments to the same extent as democrats. The examples I used here were simply from the latest headlines, which happen to focus on Kerry. The problem seems to be the press and the public want emotive language – this sells newspapers and makes for “great” conversation. Politicians appear to be under great pressure to defend themselves in one sentence and have succumbed to the temptation to use negative prejudicial statements rather than substance. While “mudslinging” is often decried it is consistently effective in swaying the American public.

Posted by tim at April 28, 2004 12:15 PM

Articles Related to Politics: