Emotional Ethical and Logical Fallacies

Fallacy of Emotion
Emotional appeals are commonly used in the media, although good journalists avoid them when communicating the facts to the public. Politicians, on the other hand, rely willingly and frequently on emotional appeals to sway their audiences in the same way that marketers do. The politicians’ reactions to the Las Vegas shootings of October 2, 2017 reveals the different ways emotional appeals are used to sway or influence the public, while simultaneously diverting attention from the real issues. President Trump responded to the Vegas mass shooting as an “act of pure evil,” a moralistic judgment that speaks directly to those who believe in the Biblical duality of good versus evil. In fact, Trump went on to say, “We pray for the day when evil is banished. May God provide the grieving families with strength to carry on,” highlighting his appeal to emotion through the socially acceptable medium of religion. Expressing sympathy is a logical response in a tragedy like this one, and there are bound to be legitimate emotions. However, reacting to the tragedy using religious terminology is illogical and unnecessary. Equally as fallacious is the appeal to anger among the general public, either by lashing out against politicians and the NRA or against the media for not framing the issue as being an act of domestic terrorism. It is important to investigate the root causes of mass shootings, but using emotions to do so may be manipulative and illogical.
Works Cited
“Trump calls Las Vegas massacre an 'act of pure evil'.” The Week. Retrieved online: Trump calls Las Vegas massacre an 'act of pure evil'http://theweek.com/5things/728222/trump-calls-las-vegas-massacre-act-pure-evil
Ethical Fallacy
The straw man argument is one of the most common ethical fallacies. In Robbins’s article lambasting the NFL players who protest, the author writes, “These jocks probably were not history majors.” Not only does his statement come across as sanctimonious and insulting by assuming that the athletes were not history majors (why wouldn’t they be?), Robbins bases his argument in part on the fallacy of discrediting athletes as not being educated enough to use their right to protest. The author makes a blanket assumption about the players’ knowledge of American history and uses the ad hominem ethical fallacy to lure the reader into believing that the players are acting in a way that is contrary to core American values. For example, Robbins also notes that the protests are “not a First Amendment issue,” when of course, they are. To justify his claim, Robbins states that employers are permitted to limit or curtail their employees’ use of free speech to protect the integrity of the workplace. The NFL chooses to allow free speech because of the way sports does garner a considerable amount of media attention. Athletes are American citizens with a personal and political responsibility to speak up for injustice in peaceful and legal ways, which they are. The fact that the NFL is willing to put up with what Robbins claims to be a dip in the ratings proves that it takes the side of the players and not of potentially racist journalists like Robbins, who resorts in ethical fallacies like ad hominem to discredit the players.

Works Cited
Robbins, James. NFL commits suicide by Trump with politically correct protests. USA Today. Retrieved online: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/09/26/fl-stop-self-destructive-grandstanding-and-just-play-football-james-robbins-column/701472001/


Logical Fallacy
In an opinion article published in the USA Today newspaper, the author overloads the article with logical fallacies, as well as fallacies of logic, ethic, and emotion. For example, Robbins writes, “The NFL is on a politically correct suicide course, alienating fans and wrecking ratings.” This sentence contains several logical fallacies including ad populum, red herring, and begging the claim. Moreover, the author exaggerates, using alarming diction and emotional appeals instead of facts. Being “politically correct” is presumed to be a bad thing, whereas political correctness can just as easily be framed in a positive light. The author fails to clarify why being politically correct is bad, or why not protesting racism is good. Likewise, the author offers no facts about how the protests are “alienating fans,” or “wrecking ratings.” These statements are red herrings because they divert attention from the real political issues at stake, such as using freedom of speech to promote a more perfect union. Players make their money through sports, and they would not jeopardize their own careers. Using statements like “chose to dishonor the US flag” is also a logical fallacy begging the claim and also creating a circular argument (protesting the flag is wrong because protesting the flag is dishonorable).

Works Cited
Robbins, James. NFL commits suicide by Trump with politically correct protests. USA Today. Retrieved online: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/09/26/fl-stop-self-destructive-grandstanding-and-just-play-football-james-robbins-column/701472001/