You’re going to get us an AI tag. I just know it!
Maybe we can’t. So?
Lots of things about my subjective state might be an illusion. How the emotions are produced might be an illusion. But the emotions are real – by the very nature of subjectiveness. Even if nobody other than me can tell that they’re real.
Just as this conversation is real, even if we’re both blips in a computer, or parts of a god’s dream, or one of us is orange goo in a cup and the other is blue goo in a bag on the other side of the laboratory, or the conversation is between two parts of my own head.
Passion can be part of an argument, of course, but it should not be the suasive part. The fact that someone cares deeply about a particular case or cause (to bring it back to the framing discussion) should not make that person’s argument any more convincing than it would be without that passion. I recognize that this view is not widely followed in popular culture.
I challenge this assertion, or at least what is implied by it. The motive for making or paying attention to an argument is separate from the content of the argument. Someone’s motive or passion should not be able to influence a dispute nor to carry an otherwise weak argument to victory.
Just an observation…
We have a number of posters who use the same tactic: make a pronouncement that is so partisan that no one believes it, then they add a link (to a news story, an opinion piece, or a statistical analysis).
But for anyone who spends more effort than the OP and actually reads the link, there’s a surprise. It doesn’t support the partisan pronouncement, and often says the exact opposite.
So I’ve got to ask, due to the prevalence of this, did these posters all get bitten by the same were-sealion?
.
eta: I notice that three of these are the subject of their own Pit threads in the top 15 (so, a fifth of the most recent threads are dealing with people who do this… seems excessive!).
Something about flipping over a distressed turtle?
Why bother? A distressed turtle and a dead turtle contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there’s no discernible difference.
You need to stop being so emotional.
True to a point.
I suppose I’m influenced by fairly often having run into the sort of argument that goes ‘my opponents are making an argument based on emotion when they say that keeping that open public space is important. I’m making an argument based entirely on logic when I say we need to build X so that my children can find jobs in this town!’
But wanting your children to be able to find jobs in the town is just as much an emotion-based argument as wanting your children to be able to run around in open fields.
And I think both of those are applicable arguments to that issue, and are entitled to influence it – though sometimes both parties can’t be satisfied, and there are also generally logical arguments to apply.
I also wouldn’t discount the level of self-satisfied smugness that may accompany the “appeal against appeals to emotion” fallacy. Like, “Ah ha! An argument that, in part, sounds in human emotion! That means I win no matter what else was said.”
Which, ironically enough, is an emotional argument of its own. Just not one that is shared or effective with others. At base, it’s an appeal to one’s own emotion.
Merely sounding in emotion is not a fallacy. But thinking that someone else’s mere reference to human qualities (not even an express appeal to emotion) somehow defeats their argument? Yep, that sure is a fallacy.
A question? Who loaded the turtle with real bullets?
Oh, hell! The skeevy lions are back.
I knew it, I knew he’d go there.
Maybe for you. Rhetoric is the main reason I’m here. Wannabe-Vulcans can go back to Debate Club. Or GD, at least. This was a CS thread, after all.
They were employing both.
All either side has to do is to explain why their assertions are true, i.e. that a) open public space is important (what for and why?) or b) young people need to be able to find jobs in the town. They don’t need to be emotional arguments, and if you are concerned with this decision, you should be asking for those reasons. Once reasons are given, you and others making the decision can weigh the relative benefits of the two proposals. Lacking reasons, you would have to weigh based on other factors, which will probably not be as valid.
Very true, and if someone did that to me, I would reiterate my position with very clear reasons and strip out the emotion, and challenge them to answer the substance of the argument, not the tone. Instead of insulting them, for example.
I’d also like to point out that women get this a lot.
Oh, you have feelings about your rights being taken away? Silly woman, let’s be reasonable about this.
And I get it a lot in particular because I’m an emotional kind of person - which in no way has any bearing on my ability to formulate a cohesive argument. I would direct those smug dudes to Descartes’ Error, a foundational text for the understanding of reason in neuroscience. Guess what? We can’t reason without feelings, and reason actually comes after our moral instinct has been triggered. We decide how we feel, then we construct a narrative to justify it. Hell, if you look at some of the stuff coming out of evolutionary psych right now, it appears consciousness itself may just be the PR network justifying all the decisions other parts of your brain made in a way that makes sense to you and everyone who knows you - but may in fact have nothing to do with the real reason your brain made that decision.
Yeah, tell me I’m too fucking emotional. You’ll get a neuropsych lecture on top of me handing you your ass.
I’m glad I’m not on Facebook anymore, but a classic example of this was a random guy who posted, “Women just can’t form reasoned arguments based on facts and logic. They overwhelmingly rely on anecdote. Take my ex wife for example…”
This is actually a topic that fascinates me. I watched a Royal Institution lecture on consciousness a couple years ago that really turned me onto it (the idea of human cognition growing out of, rather than been wholly apart from “the beast machine,” as Descartes might have called it, in trying to separate the mind from the body, and humans apart from other animals) and it featured in a fairly lengthy paper I wrote in law school about human dignity as a basis for human rights, notions of which (human dignity) may themselves be grounded in human biology (and so do not rely on appeals to the metaphysical, as a Kantian might insist).
In fact, I think empathy and sympathy, “feelings” if you will, must be at least accounted (though hardly the sole basis) for in any moral system fit for humans. Is that idea really so controversial? That human animals sometimes have emotional reactions, and, like, attention should be paid?
It fascinates me too! In the logic v. reason debate, I favor a more integrated view of how humans think. If we had no emotional stake in our arguments, we’d never debate anything. Even if that emotional stake is, “Facts matter, dammit!” And I totally get that because I’m very emotionally invested in the idea that we should be going for solutions supported by research rather than what feels true. (I have not read the thread that spawned this discussion.) But I think sometimes even with that evidence-based view, we become emotionally attached to specific interventions because we’re convinced that is the proven thing, and are more prone to ignore legitimate criticisms of that proven thing because of our emotional attachment by proxy.
I’m little more than an amateur reader of this stuff, but it seems to me there are no limits to the ways humans can delude themselves.
And absolutely, humans are biological, moral animals with an innate sense of right and wrong. We ignore that at our own peril.
You’re not understanding what I’m saying. I’m not saying “emotional” as in “bursting into tears” or “shouting”. I’m saying that “I want my kids to have open space to play in” is emotionally based and so is “I want my kids to be able to find jobs here”. Notice the “I want” in both of those formulations? That’s an emotion. Why does it matter whether young people can find jobs in this town, or have to leave the town or the country to find them, or can’t find them at all? It matters because of emotions.
Whether the proposed development is likely to provide the promised jobs, whether there’s a better place to put it, whether it can be designed so as to save the open space, whether it’s likely to significantly decrease the number of currently available jobs by screwing up the place, whether the specific ways opponents are saying it’ll screw up the place are scientifically valid, whether there are in fact plenty of jobs and the reason young people are leaving town is something else, whether an inordinate number of young people are leaving town in the first place – all of those are matters for logic. But both/all sides of the underlying argument are based on emotion.
Oh, yeah. And there’s often a really nasty catch-22 in there. If nobody’s getting upset, then it must not matter very much; no need to do anything about it. If anybody is getting upset, they’re just being emotional, and emotional arguments should be ignored; so no need to do anything about it . . .
That’s the other sense of “emotional argument”, of course. But it’s often used as a weapon in very much the same fashion: ‘all the logic is on one side, that other/those other sides aren’t worth listening to.’
And that comes back to the sense I was using it in. Whether the argument’s made in a dispassionate tone of voice or not: of course it’s based on emotion. Everything we do and rationalize is based on emotion.
Exactly.
Well, if we’re going to have a very Pit like sidetrack on human nature and argument, I won’t complain. I’m going to be a bit contrary though, and somewhat disagree with you @Spice_Weasel. Oh, NOT on the dismissal of arguments because someone is emotionally invested in them, or that it’s ABSOLUTELY leveled at women more frequently than men.
I mean if a woman argues with emotion, she’s “hysterical”, while a man is “passionate”. It’s fucking bullshit double standards is what it is. But…
Arguing from passion, without the facts and skills to back it up leads us to Jan 6, cults of personality, and similar populist movements just as often as it leads to positive outcomes.
Not that I think this is what you or others are arguing at all! I think everyone is clear that passion PLUS reason make for the best and most interesting debates and arguments. But wanted to point out passion has it’s dangers as well, especially when it replaces reason, rather than augmenting or instigating it!
However, the following I will -not- give support too.
I’d like it to be true. I really would. But I see no evidence that humans are moral creates with an innate sense of right and wrong. Otherwise our definitions of such would be far more uniform. I’ll grant that almost all (probably all, but well, I refuse to invite a nitpicking) successful societies have early in their history evolved a social definition of right and wrong (often with many commonalities, it’s true!) which they strive with greater and lesser success to impart to all members of their societies. It’s one of the things that allows them to propagate, spread, and thrive.
But innate? No. I truly, truly wish. But no.
And yet, ironically, you’re liable to find the very same cohort spouting “Facts don’t care about your feelings!”
I would say it’s not so much morality that is innate as it is the capacity for empathy, sympathy, and emotions in general that is innate (or at least, common enough in the species as to be as innate as anything can be, even though there will be obvious exceptions–not unlike, say, bipedalism may be said to be “innate” to being a human, even as there are obviously humans who are not bipedal, but are still very much human and should be recognized as such, with equal dignity to those who are in fact bipedal), and that as such humans will tend to influenced by how things resonate with them on an emotional level, and that even if facts don’t care about your feelings, it is a fact that you have feelings, and they should not be ignored.
That doesn’t mean listened to, mind you, just not ignored. In fact one of the ways we can settle disputes over whether and how to consider “feelings” in decision-making is by giving a fair hearing to those whose feelings may put them at odds with the wider moral system society has built. But of course the outcome of a hearing doesn’t mean acceptance: it could (and in the case of the Jan 6 insurrectionists should) result in curtailment of one’s ability to act upon feelings in a way that may be a hazard to society.
(Fixed presumed typo in italics.)
Humans have an innate moral sense in the same way we have an innate language ability. Just like all humans (pathologies aside) develop some form of language, we all develop some sense of right and wrong. But the exact expression of these is highly dependent on environment (that is, culture). I’m not sure why uniformity in morals should be expected when we don’t have uniformity in language, either.
In case it’s not obvious, both language and morality are adaptations we have to ease living in groups. So it’s not surprising they develop in similar ways.