Appeal to Pity, Appeal to the People, Appeal Against the person

5. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
***by Patrick J. Hurley, A concise Introduction to Logic

The fallacy of appeal to pity occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion and then attempts to evoke pity from the reader or listener in an effort to get him or her to accept the conclusion. Example:

Taxpayer to judge: Your Honor, I admit that I declared thirteen children as dependents on my tax return, even though I have only two, and I realize that this was wrong. But if you find me guilty of tax evasion, my reputation will be ruined. I'll probably lose my job, my poor wife will not be able to have the operation that she desperately needs, and my kids will starve. Surely you will find me not guilty.

The conclusion of this argument is, "Surely, you will find me not guilty." Obviously, the conclusion is not logically relevant to the arguer's set of pathetic circumstances, although it is psychologically relevant. If the arguer succeeds in evoking pity from the listener or reader, the latter is liable to exercise his or her desire to help the arguer by accepting the argument.

In this way the reader or listener may be fooled into accepting a conclusion that is not supported by any evidence. The appeal to pity is quite common and is frequently used by students on their instructors at exam time and by lawyers on behalf of their clients before judges and juries.

One of criticism of the Internet is that it is full of unsubstantiated information, yet many people treat it the same way that one would look up information in an encyclopedia or reference book. But does the information you view on the web, an encyclopedia, or reference book go through any kind of analysis at all?

Please investigate the wealth of information available to you on the pros and cons of the issue. What is the battle all about? How convincing are the arguments on either side?

You will find many discussions of these issues and find even more conclusions about what should be done about it. If you feel your opinion is your own ( and none of the others), then use the evidence to predict what should happen now. Research your question by browsing the Internet and then make a tentative conclusion. Ask yourself why you have come to believe this position over the others. Do you think the position you have taken can be justified in the traditional way, through argument and analysis of the data?

6. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)
***by Patrick J. Hurley, A concise Introduction to Logic

Nearly everyone wants to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized, and accepted by others. The appeal to the people uses these desires to get the reader or listener to accept a conclusion. Two approaches are involved, one of them direct, the other indirect.

The direct approach occurs when an arguer, addressing a large group of people, excites the emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for his conclusion. The objective is to arouse a kind of mob mentality. This is the strategy used by nearly every propagandist and demagogue. Adolph Hitler was a master of the technique, but is is also used with some measure of success by speechmakers at Democratic and Republican national conventions. Waving flags and blaring music add to the overall effect. Because the individuals in the audience want to share in the camaraderie, the euphoria, and the excitement, they find themselves accepting any number of conclusions with ever-increasing fervor.

The direct approach is not limited to verbal argumentation, of course; a similar effect can be accomplished in writing. By employing such emotionally charged phraseology as "fighter of communism" "champion of the free enterprise system," and "defender of the working man," a polemicist can awaken the same kind of mob mentality as he would if he were speaking.

In the indirect approach the arguer directs his appeal not to the crowd as a whole but to one or more individuals separately, focusing upon some aspect of their relationship to the crowd. The indirect approach includes such specific forms as the bandwagon argument, the appeal to vanity, and the appeal to snobbery. All are standard techniques of the advertising industry. Here is an example of the bandwagon argument:

Of course you want to buy Zest toothpaste. Why 90 percent of Amercia brushes with Zest.

The idea is that you will be left behind or left out of the group if you do not use the product.

The appeal to vanity often associates the product with a certain celebrity who is admired and pursued, the idea being that you, too, will be admired and pursued if you use it. Example:

Only the ultimate in fashion could complement the face of Bianca Jagger. Spectrum sunglasses--for the beautiful people in the jet set.

And here is an example of the appeal to snobbery:

A Rolls Royce is not for everyone. If you qualify as one of the select few, this distinguished classic may be seen and driven at British Motor Cars, Ltd. (By appointment only, please).

Needless to say, the indirect approach is used by others besides advertisers:

Mother to child: You want to grow up and be just like Wonder Woman, don't you? Then eat your liver and carrots.

Both the direct and indirect approaches of the ad populum fallacy have the same basic structure:

You want to be accepted/included in the group/loved/esteemed...Therefore, you should accept XYZ as true.

In the direct approach the arousal of a mob mentality produces an immediate feeling of belonging for each person in the crowd. Each person feels united with the crowd,which evokes a sense of strength and security. When the crowd roars its approval of the conclusions that are then offered, anyone who does not accept them automatically cuts himself or herself off from the crowd and risks the loss of his or her security, strength, and acceptance. The same thing happens in the indirect approach, but the context and technique are somewhat subtler.

7. Argument Against the Person

This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances (either directly or implicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds by directing his or her attention not to the first person's argument but to the first person himself. When this occurs, the seconds person is said to commit an argument against the person.

The argument against the person occurs in three forms: the ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and the tu quoque. In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to the first person's argument by verbally abusing the first person. Example:

Poet Allen Ginsberg has argued in favor of abolishing censorship of pornographic literature. But Ginsberg's arguments are nothing but trash. Ginsberg, you know, is a marijuana-smoking homosexual and a thoroughgoing advocated of the drug culture.

Because Ginsberg's being a marijuana-smoking homosexual and advocate of the drug culture has no bearing on his ability to construct good arguments, this argument is fallacious.

The ad hominem circumstantial begins the same way as the ad hominem abusive, but instead of heaping verbal abuse on his or her opponent, the respondent attempts to discredit the opponents' argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent. By doing so the respondent hopes to show that the opponent is predisposed to argue the way he or she does and should therefore not be taken seriously. Here is an example:

Economist Milton Friedman has argued in favor of reducing federal income taxes. But Friedman's argument should be discounted. Friedman is a millionaire who would benefit greatly from a reduction in taxes. Also, Friedman has no need for the government social programs that higher taxes provide for.

The author of this argument ignores the substance of Friedman's argument for reducing taxes and attempts instead to discredit it by calling attention to certain circumstances that affect Friedman, namely, the fact that he is a millionaire and the fact that he has no need for government social programs.

The ad hominem circumstantial is easy to recognize because it always takes this form: "Of course, Mr X argues this way; just look at the circumstances that affect him." Merely because a person happens to be affected by certain circumstances is not sufficient reason to think that the person is incapable of arguing logically. Any attempt to discredit such an argument in this way therefore involves a fallacy.

The tu quoque ("you, too") fallacy begins the same way as the other two varieties of the ad hominem except that the first person's argument causes the respondent to appear guilty. The respondent then replies by attempting to shift the burden of guilt back to the first person. The response usually takes the form, "Your argument cannot be taken seriously because you are no better than I." Example:

A parent admonishes his or her child for having stolen candy from the corner store. The child responds: "Your argument is no good. You told me yourself just a week ago that you, too, stole candy when you were a kid."

The tu quoque is sometimes called the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. Obviously, two wrongs do not make a right. Whether the parent stole candy when he or she was a child is irrelevant to whether the child should steal candy.

The three form of the ad hominem fallacy are often convincing because they catch the immediate attention of the reader or listener and they do introduce some kind of evidence into the picture. The fact that Ginsberg is a marijuana-smoking homosexual is eye-catching, and it does constitute evidence in support of some conclusion of the argument. If the reader or listener isn't careful to distinguish relevant evidence from irrelevant evidence, he or she is likely to be persuaded by such an argument.

An especially important point to keep in mind about the ad hominem fallacy is that the fallacy always involves two arguers (at least implicitly). Consider the following arguments:

Lybyan dictator Moammar Kadafi has argued that Western nations have been reckless in their sale of arms to Israel. This argument is sheer nonsense. Kadafi is a lunatic who supports terrorists all over the world. Furthermore, he has territorial ambitions that extend to half the countries in Africa.

Libyan dictator Moammar Kadafi is a lunatic who supports terrorists all over the world. Furthermore, he has territorial ambitions that extend to half the countries in African. Kadafi is therefore a wicked, irresponsible leader.

The first argument involves two arguers: Kadafi and the person attacking him. The argument commits an ad hominem abusive because the second arguer ignores Kadafi's argument and directs his attention instead to Kadafi himself. The second argument, however, involves only a single arguer, the person attacking Kadafi. No ad hominem is committed. If the premises are true, the argument is a good one.

The various forms of the argument against the person should not be confused with the appeal to force. In the appeal to force only one person need present an argument, and that person threatens the listener or reader in an effort to make him or her accept the conclusion. In the argument against the person two people must present arguments (the first person at least by implication), and the second person attempts to discredit the first's argument by verbally abusing him, by citing circumstances that affect him, or by shifting the burden of guilt onto him.

###################

8. Appeal to Force
(Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to the "Stick')

The fallacy of appeal to force occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion. The fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-being of the listener or reader, who may be either a single person or a group of persons.

Obviously, such a threat is logically irrelevant to the subject matter of the conclusion, so any argument based on such a procedure is fallacious. The ad baculum fallacy often occurs when children argue with one another:

Child to playmade: "Mister Rogers" is the best show on TV; and if you don't believe it, I'm going to call my big brother over here and he's goring to beat you up.

But it occurs among adults as well:

Secretary to Boss: I'm sure you'll want to raise my salary for the coming year. After all, you know how friendly I am with your wife, and I'm sure you wouldn't want her to find out what's been going on between you and that sexpot client of yours.

The first example involves a physical threat, the second a psychological threat. While neither threat provides any genuine evidence that the consludion is true, both provide evidence that someone might be injured. If the two types of evidence are confused with each other, both arguer and listener may be deluded into thinking that the conclusion is supported by evidence, when in fact it is not.

The appeal to force fallacy usually accomplishes its purpose by psychologically impeding the reader or listener from acknowledging a missing premise that, if acknowledged, would be seen to be false or at least questionable. The two examples just given can be interpreted as concealing the following premises, both of which are most likely false:

If my brother forces you to admit that Mister Rogers is the best show on TV, then Mister Rogers is in fact the best show.

If I succeed in threatening you, then you will want to raise my salary.

The conclusion of the first argument is that Mister Rogers is the best show on TV. But just because someone is forced into saying that it is does not mean that such is the case. Similarly, the conclusion of the second argument is that the boss will want to raise the secretary's salary. But if the boss is threatened into raising the secretary's salary, this does not mean that he does it because he wants to. Many of the other informal fallacies can be interpreted as accomplishing their purpose in this way.

18. False Dichotomy

The fallacy of false dichotomy (otherwise called "false bifurcation" and the "either-or fallacy") is committed when one premise of an argument is an "either..or" (disjunctive) statement that presents two alternatives as if they were jointly exhaustive (i.e., as if no third alternative were possible). One of these alternatives is usually preferred by the arguer. When the arguer then proceeds to eliminate the undesirable alternative, the desirable one is left as the conclusion. Such an argument is clearly valid; but since the disjunctive premise is usually false, the arguments are fallacious.

Of course, not all unsound arguments are fallacious. The fallacious nature of false dichotomy lies in the attempt by the arguer to delude the reader or listener into thinking that the disjunctive premise presents jointly exhaustive alternatives and is therefore true by necessity. The fallacy is commonly committed by children and adolescents when arguing with their parents, by advertisers, and by adults generally. Here are some examples:

Either you let me attend the Neil Diamond concert or I'll be miserable for the rest of my life.

Either you use Ultra Guard deodorant or you risk the chance of perspiration odor.

Either You buy only American-made products or you don't deserve to be called a loyal American.

None of the disjunctive premises in these arguments presents alternatives that are jointly exhaustive. Yet in each case the arguer wants to make it appear that it does. For example, in the first argument the arguer wants to convey the illusion that either he or she goes to the concert or faces life time of misery, and no other alternatives are possible. Clearly, however, such is not the case.

False dichotomy is classified as a fallacy of presumption because the soundness of the argument depends on the presumption that the two alternatives presented are the only ones that exist. If they are not the only ones exist, the "either...or" statement if false, and the argument is unsound.

Most instances of false dichotomy are not presented here as complete arguments. Only the disjunctive premise is expressed, and the arguer leaves it to the reader or listener to supply the missing parts.

Either you buy me a new mink coat, or I'll freeze to death when winter comes.

Either I continue smoking, or I'll get fat and you'll hate to be seen with me.

The missing premise and conclusions are easily introduced.