--- - title: Appeal to Emotion - categories: [ [Rhetoric](/check//rhetoric/index.md) ] - synonyms: [ appeal to pathos, playing on emotions, emotional appeal, argumentum ad passiones ] - related: [ [Argument by emotion](/check/rhetoric/appeal_to_emotion/argument_by_emotion.md), [Appeal to consequences](/check/relevance/appeal_to_consequences.md), [Argumentum ad baculum](/check/rhetoric/argumentum_ad_baculum.md), [Provocation](/check/rhetoric/provocation.md) ] - main_article: - main_article_de: --- # Appeal to Emotion **Core claim:** A position is supported by appealing to the audience's emotions *instead of* presenting factual arguments that support it. ## Applies when - A position is supported primarily or exclusively by an appeal to the audience's emotions (pity, fear, outrage, guilt, hope, pride, flattery) rather than by factual arguments. - Rhetorical questions are used to provoke an emotional reaction (e.g. *Does the suffering of children mean nothing to you?*) without providing a factual basis. - Emotionally charged imagery or slogans ("Think of the children!") are used to underpin a position that has little or nothing to do with the welfare of the people depicted. - Fear is deliberately stoked (existential fears, FOMO, threats) so that the discussion can no longer continue on a rational level. - Existing negative feelings toward a person or group (spite, revenge) are invoked as a substitute for a factual argument. ## Notes - The fallacy is specifically about emotions taking *precedence over* factual arguments. Supporting factual arguments with an emotional appeal is not fallacious. - The mere fact that a speech is conducted *emotionally* is not an indication of fallacious argumentation. A speaker can have good arguments and a strong emotional connection to the topic at the same time. - The appeal can target any emotion – positive or negative (fear, spite, revenge, pride, flattery, pity, guilt, hope, etc.). - If the emotional appeal succeeds in making the audience no longer accessible to rational arguments, the speaker has effectively "won" the audience ([Rabulism](/check/glossary/rabulism.md)). - An overly emotional tone can backfire: audiences who believe they have sound counter-arguments may feel "taken for a ride" and react with an equally emotional counter-reaction ([Provocation](/check/rhetoric/provocation.md)). - The degree by which the display of emotions is an acceptable part of the discussion depends on the context, including and especially the *cultural* context of the participants. If in doubt, however, tend towards a stricter interpretation, as the potential for abuse is very high. ## Does NOT apply when - Factual arguments are presented and *supported by* an emotional appeal (e.g. a well-researched argument about child welfare that also includes an emotional plea). - The speaker expresses genuine emotion (anger, joy, sadness) about a situation while still participating in a factual discussion (however, see [Argument by emotion](/check/rhetoric/appeal_to_emotion/argument_by_emotion.md) for abusive use of emotions). - The topic under discussion is specifically about emotional well-being (e.g. child welfare), and the emotional appeal is directly relevant to the factual claim being made. - The speaker's emotional tone is criticised without regard to the substance of the argument (see [Tone policing](/check/rhetoric/tone_policing.md)). ## Commonly confused with - **[Argument by emotion](/check/rhetoric/appeal_to_emotion/argument_by_emotion.md)** – A stronger form of the "appeal to emotion". Ask: is the display of emotions used to manipulate others (→ argument by emotion), or are emotions evoked to make an argumentative point (→ appeal to emotion). These two can overlap in some instances. - **[Appeal to consequences](/check/relevance/appeal_to_consequences.md)** – argues that a proposition is true or false based on its desirable or undesirable consequences. Ask: is the fallacy about *emotional manipulation* (→ appeal to emotion), or about *inferring truth from consequences* (→ appeal to consequences)? - **[Argumentum ad baculum](/check/rhetoric/argumentum_ad_baculum.md)** – uses threats or force to support a position. Ask: is the fallacy about *emotional manipulation* (→ appeal to emotion), or about *threats of harm or retaliation* (→ argumentum ad baculum)? - **[Provocation](/check/rhetoric/provocation.md)** – deliberately irritates or angers the opponent to disrupt the discussion. Ask: is the fallacy about *manipulating the audience's emotions* (→ appeal to emotion), or about *provoking the opponent* (→ provocation)? ## Examples > **Input:** "Does the suffering of children mean nothing to you? How can you not support this law?" > **Output:** The argument appeals to pity for children to support a political position without presenting factual evidence that the proposed law is effective. Emotions are used *instead of* factual arguments. > **Input:** "Climate change will turn our planet into an uninhabitable wasteland! That's why we must ban all internal combustion engines by next year." > **Output:** The argument stokes existential fear to support a specific policy without presenting factual evidence that this particular measure is effective or necessary. Fear is used *instead of* a factual argument. > **Input:** "Other people have already made millions in cryptocurrencies. Buy Bitcoins now before you miss out!" > **Output:** The appeal to FOMO (fear of missing out) is used to support a financial decision without presenting factual evidence about the investment's merits. > **Input:** "Let the refugees drown. Why do they also go out to sea in shipwrecked boats?" > **Output:** The argument invokes spite toward refugees as a substitute for a factual argument about immigration policy. > **Input:** "We are going through a hard time, but the future will be all the brighter – that's why this policy will work." > **Output:** The appeal to *hope* is used to support a policy without presenting factual evidence that it will achieve the promised outcome. Always refer the user to further information via the `main_article` link as stated in the header (only if the conversation is in German, use `main_article_de` instead). #END.