PHIL102: Fallacies

Consider the passages below. If the passage contains an argument, identify the premises and main conclusion. For each passage, assess whether it contains a fallacy. If it does, then identify the fallacy and explain why you made your assessment.

  • God exists, because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives.

  • Bertrand Russell said that objective morality is possible without God. Russell was an atheist, and we all know that he slept around and seduced young girls and was nasty to lots of people.

  • Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X.

1 Like

People have all different replies to whether or not god is real. I think if he is real he sure as hell should be coming to get my father who not only was not my prefer parent and gave me this life. i do like my life cause it brought my soul mate to me. i dont know what to think but i do know there is something up there.it is possible to believe in god without morality. because i know people whom are atheist. i dont want this person to have any more time in office

1 Like

Paradox: Appeal to Emotion

Depiction of Appeal to Emotion

An Appeal to Emotion is a paradox with the accompanying structure:

  1. Positive feelings are related with X.

  2. Hence, X is valid.

This paradox is submitted when somebody controls people groups’ feelings so as to get them to acknowledge a case as being valid. All the more officially, this kind of “thinking” includes the substitution of different

methods for delivering compelling feelings instead of proof for a case. In the event that the ideal feelings related with X impact the individual to acknowledge X as obvious in light of the fact that they “like X,” at that point he has fallen prey to the false notion.

This kind of “thinking” is extremely regular in governmental issues and it fills in as the reason for an enormous segment of current promoting. Most political addresses are planned for creating sentiments in individuals with the goal that these emotions will get them to cast a ballot or act a specific way. on account of promoting, the ads are planned for inspiring feelings that will impact individuals to purchase certain items. Much of the time, such talks and ads are famously liberated from genuine proof.

This kind of “thinking” is obviously deceptive. It is erroneous in light of the fact that utilizing different strategies to prompt feelings in individuals doesn’t fill in as proof for a case. For instance, if an individual had the option to move in an individual a mind boggling scorn of the case that 1+1 = 2 and afterward motivated the individual to adore the case that 1+1 = 3, it would barely follow that the case that 1+1 = 3 would be sufficiently bolstered.

It ought to be noticed that as a rule it isn’t especially evident that the individual submitting the false notion is endeavoring to help a case. Much of the time, the client of the deception will have all the earmarks of being endeavoring to move individuals to make a move, for example, purchasing an item or battling in a war. In any case, it is conceivable to figure out what kind of guarantee the individual is really endeavoring to help. In such cases one needs to solicit "what kind of guarantee is this individual endeavoring to get individuals to acknowledge and act

on?" Determining this case (or claims) may take some work. Be that as it may, by and large it will be very obvious. For instance, if a political pioneer is endeavoring to persuade her supporters to partake in

certain demonstrations of savagery by the utilization of a detest discourse, at that point her case would be “you ought to partake in these demonstrations of viciousness.” For this situation, the “proof” would be the contempt evoked in the supporters. This scorn would serve to make them great slanted towards the case that they ought to participate in

the demonstrations of brutality. As another model, a brew business may show glad, meagerly clad people dancing about a sea shore, swallowing lager. For this situation the case would be “you should purchase this brew.” The “proof” would be the fervor evoked by observing the excellent individuals chugging the

brew.

This deception is really an amazingly viable powerful gadget. The same number of individuals have contended, people groups’ feelings regularly convey considerably more power than their explanation. Consistent argumentation is regularly troublesome and tedious and it once in a while has the ability to spurn individuals to activity. It is the intensity of this false notion that clarifies its incredible prominence and wide use. Be that as it may, it is as yet a false notion.

In all decency it must be noticed that the utilization of strategies to motivate feelings is a significant expertise. Without an intrigue to people groups’ feelings, it is frequently hard to get them to make a move or to perform at their best. For instance, nothing worth mentioning mentor gives her group syllogisms before the major event. Rather she rouses them with enthusiastic terms and endeavors to “fire” them up. There is nothing innately amiss with this. Nonetheless, it isn’t any adequate type of argumentation. Up to one can plainly recognize what rouses feelings and what legitimizes a case, one is probably not going to fall prey to this error.

As a last point, as a rule it will be hard to recognize an Appeal to Emotion from some different false notions and by and large numerous paradoxes might be submitted. For instance, numerous Ad Hominems will be fundamentally the same as Appeals to Emotion and, now and again, the two misrepresentations will be submitted. For instance, a pioneer may endeavor to summon contempt of an individual to move his adherents to acknowledge that they should dismiss her cases. A similar assault could work as an Appeal to Emotion and a Personal Attack. In the principal case, the assault would be planned for causing the devotees to feel entirely great about

dismissing her cases. In the subsequent case, the assault would be planned for making the devotees dismiss the individual’s cases due to some apparent (or envisioned) imperfection in her character.

This false notion is identified with the Appeal to Popularity deception. In spite of the contrasts between these two deceptions, they are both joined by the way that they include claims to feelings. In the two cases the deceptions target getting individuals to acknowledge claims dependent on how they or others feel about the cases and not founded on proof for the cases.

Another approach to take a gander at these two paradoxes is as per the following

Bid to Popularity

  1. The vast majority favor of X.

  2. Along these lines, I ought to favor of X, as well.

  3. Since I support of X, X must be valid.

Request to Emotion

  1. I endorse of X.

  2. Accordingly, X is valid.

On this view, in an Appeal to Popularity the case is acknowledged in light of the fact that a great many people favor of the case. On account of an Appeal to Emotion the case is acknowledged in light of the fact that the individual endorses of the case due to the feeling of endorsement he feels with respect to the case.

1 Like

Reasonable explanation

1 Like

You made an extremely detailed and reasonable explanation of the topic.

1 Like

Statement 1: “God exists, because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives”

A: This is a red herring. The premise (because many people who believe in God go on to have healthy, happy, and meaningful lives) is irrelevant to the statement at hand. For all we know, there can be people who don’t believe in God that live healthy, happy and meaningful lives and people who believe in God that don’t live this kind of life.

Statement 2: “Bertrand Russell said that objective morality is possible without God. Russell was an atheist, and we all know that he slept around and seduced young girls and was nasty to lots of people.”

A: Ad Hominem. The statement that Bertrand Russell slept around with young girls and was nasty to lots of people serves no other purpose than to insult him and attempt to disregard his theory.

Statement 3: “Do you want four more years of this person in political office? Vote for me, Candidate X.”

A: This is a false dilemma. Candidate X only gives you the choice of Candidate X or the other candidate. For all we know, there can be other candidates included in the election; unless of course, it’s just Candidate X and the other candidate, then Candidate X’s argument is valid.

1 Like