Emotions have a role to play in the moral life.
In moral arguments, however, the use of emotions alone as substitutes for premises is a fallacy. We commit this fallacy when we try to convince some- one to accept a conclusion not by providing them with relevant reasons but by appealing only to fear, guilt, anger, hate, compassion, and the like. For example:
The defendant is obviously guilty of murder in this case. Look at him in the courtroom—he’s terrify- ing and menacing. And no one can ignore the way
he stabbed that girl and mutilated her body. And her poor parents. . . .
The question here is whether the defendant com- mitted the crime, and the feelings of fear and pity that he evokes are not relevant to it. But if the question were about the anguish or torment inflicted on the victim or her parents, then our feelings of empathy would indeed be relevant— and so would any pertinent moral principles or theories.
Appeal to Emotion
213006_03_039-064_r1_el.qxp:213006_03_039-064_r1_el 8/3/15 9:46 AM Page 57
premises are solid—that is, if there are good rea- sons to believe that the first step really will lead to ruin. Consider:
1. Rampant proliferation of pornography on the Internet leads to obsession with pornographic materials.
2. Obsession with pornographic materials dis – rupts relationships, and that disruption leads to divorce.
3. Therefore, we should ban pornography on the Internet.
Perhaps the chain of events laid out here could actually occur, but we have been given no reason to believe that it would. (You can see that this argument is also missing a moral premise.) Scien- tific evidence showing that this sequence of cause and effect does occur as described would consti- tute good reason to accept Premises 1 and 2.
Faulty Analogy The use of an analogy to argue for a conclusion is known, not surprisingly, as argument by analogy. It is a type of inductive argument that says because two things are alike in some ways, they must be alike in some additional way. For example:
1. Humans feel pain, care for their young, live in social groups, and understand nuclear physics.
2. Apes also feel pain, care for their young, and live in social groups.
3. Therefore, apes can understand nuclear physics.
In argument by analogy, the probability that the conclusion is true depends on the relevant similarities between the two things being com- pared. The greater the relevant similarities, the more likely the conclusion is true. Humans and apes are relevantly similar in several ways, but the ques- tion is, Are they relevantly similar enough to ren- der the conclusion probable? In this case, though humans and apes are similar in some ways, they are not relevantly similar enough to adequately
support the conclusion. Humans and apes have many differences—the most relevant of which for this argument is probably in the physiology of their brains and in their capacity for advanced learning.