Why is the appeal to pity a logical fallacy? If this is a fallacy then why cant I see it? In my example am I blinded by the fact thay I agree with the conclusion of the argumet that killing is wrong?
2007-06-25 18:19:43 · 9 answers · asked by Wind203 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
You have failed to give a rationale for not shooting; you are not appealing to reason. The existence of your kids is not a reason not to shoot - only the existence of pity would be. The argument you are making is:
I have kids.
They deserve your pity.
If you shoot me they will suffer.
If they suffer, those who pity them will suffer, including you.
Therefore you should not shoot me.
But 'they deserve your pity' is not a fact. It's a value-based judgment. You cannot assume that the gun wielder agrees about whether the kids deserve his pity (although in this particular case, he'd have to be pretty darned damaged to not pity them). So your argument is technically invalid; it appeals to pity and not to reason.
Perhaps you are blinded by your emotional response to the situation. Try putting the argument in logical symbols to get away from that, and see it as pure reason.
2007-06-25 18:39:27 · answer #1 · answered by zilmag 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I only ask what is so important about a logical fallacy called ''appeal to pity that leads a person to shoot another? What is this a survival of the fitess or hatred of weakness?
2007-06-26 01:55:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You don't see it because it's a paradox, and you're only looking at one side of it.
The fallacy is that your two kids is meaningless to his motives to shoot you (unless your lack of kids is his reason).
However, it is valid logic because the existence of a potentially unwelcome emotion (pity, guilt) is a viable deterrent to the potential shooter. In other words, the loss (guilt and pity of making others suffer) may outweigh the gain (his reason for shooting you), which is a logically valid argument.
In this case, suffering the humility of stating a fallacious or paradox argument is (hopefully) outweighed by the benefits of logically warning of unforseen consequences for the shooter.
2007-06-25 18:33:58 · answer #3 · answered by freebird 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is not an appeal to pity...
Killing you HAS a direct influence on the future of your kids...it is a compelling argument
Herez what an appeal to pity looks like...
I dont wipe myself after i take a sh*t because my puppy died...
It is not a valid reason...it has no direct impact unless hez completely depressed and hence unmotivated to wipe himself.
This is appeal to pity...its illogical and the user exploits his
misfortune UNREASONABLY(as in no direct relationship) for personal gain...
and yes the fallacy is on a spectrum and depends on each individual case.
ps:Eventhough your example is not an appeal to pity in the strictest sense i challenge you to show me an argument that isnt an appeal to emotion when you really analyse it
So basically what im saying is all arguments are appeals to emotion...among the ones that appeal to pity, the ones that do not have a strong link can be considered appeals to pity...so your example isnt an appeal to pity.
2007-06-26 01:49:10 · answer #4 · answered by Spiderpig 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Someone who is capable of shooting you may not be capable of pity.
Whether you have children or not is irrelevant. Everyone has someone who loves & needs them & will miss them if they're gone. The shooter may hate children. He may have been abused as a child & has remained single & avoided relationships. He may hate families & everything they represent. Saying something like this may anger him even more. Or perhaps by some fluke, he has kids of his own (doubtful if he's willing to risk going to prison & not see them again) and will take pity on you & spare your life.
It is illogical to assume that the shooter will take pity on you for having kids. If his morals & lifestyle were at all similar to yours, he probably wouldn't be carrying a gun to start with.
2007-06-25 18:33:55 · answer #5 · answered by amp 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You're assuming that someone inclined to kill people, would possess some compunction against killing someone who has kids. If the person kills you (the only outcome you're attempting to sway), they will have demonstrated a lack of pity, so to assume they'd be swayed by this argument would seem to be less likely to work than appealing to their own self interest.
2007-06-25 18:28:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The logical fallacy lies in the idea that you assume the shooter has the same morals that you do. That is, you assume he wouldn't want to kill someone who has kids. However, if the shooter had the same morals, he wouldn't consider shooting you at all...kids or not.
2007-06-25 18:25:41 · answer #7 · answered by Melly Flutter 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It has nothing to do with killing being wrong. The idea is that you are supposed to agree with this person simply because not agreeing with him could result in two children starving.
The fact that two children will starve if your argument is correct does not make your argument wrong.
2007-06-25 19:15:44 · answer #8 · answered by Batman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Logic and facing death have no common ground. Why would you expect any logic?
2007-06-25 18:24:44 · answer #9 · answered by Puppy Zwolle 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋