Difference between revisions of "Appeal to guilt"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: ==Overview== category:rhetorical deceptionsAn appeal to guilt is a form of emotional argument in which the target is encouraged to feel guilty for holding the views for which t...) |
(appeal to shame) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Overview== | ==Overview== | ||
| − | [[category:rhetorical deceptions]]An [[appeal to guilt]] is a form of [[emotional argument]] in which the target is encouraged to feel guilty for holding the views for which they are arguing, often by ascribing unprovably-false motives to the target, or motives which may seem "obviously true" even though they are not. | + | [[category:rhetorical deceptions]]An [[appeal to guilt]] is a form of [[emotional argument]] in which the target is encouraged to feel guilty or shameful for holding the views for which they are arguing, often by ascribing unprovably-false motives to the target, or motives which may seem "obviously true" even though they are not. |
| + | |||
| + | '''Also known as''': appeal to shame | ||
==Validity== | ==Validity== | ||
The "appeal to guilt" is acceptable as a way of ''shaming'' an opponent into accepting an otherwise-valid argument when logic and reason have failed. Use of the "appeal to guilt" does not automatically invalidate the substance of the argument in which it is used; it is more of a signal that there may be unspoken assumptions which need to be examined more closely. | The "appeal to guilt" is acceptable as a way of ''shaming'' an opponent into accepting an otherwise-valid argument when logic and reason have failed. Use of the "appeal to guilt" does not automatically invalidate the substance of the argument in which it is used; it is more of a signal that there may be unspoken assumptions which need to be examined more closely. | ||
Revision as of 17:36, 1 January 2009
Overview
An appeal to guilt is a form of emotional argument in which the target is encouraged to feel guilty or shameful for holding the views for which they are arguing, often by ascribing unprovably-false motives to the target, or motives which may seem "obviously true" even though they are not.
Also known as: appeal to shame
Validity
The "appeal to guilt" is acceptable as a way of shaming an opponent into accepting an otherwise-valid argument when logic and reason have failed. Use of the "appeal to guilt" does not automatically invalidate the substance of the argument in which it is used; it is more of a signal that there may be unspoken assumptions which need to be examined more closely.