link to original reddit post by /u/MayCaesar
Something I have noticed is that a lot of people routinely use emotional arguments in support of their position. Let me first clarify what I mean by this.
A logical argument is an argument with a coherent logical structure: it posits a set of assumptions and, through a series of logical steps, establishes a set of conclusions. For example: "If the total money supply increases, while the total money value stays constant, then the value of a given raw monetary amount decreases". The validity of this argument stems from basic properties of numbers which are taken as unspoken assumptions and are established in elementary school mathematics.
An emotional argument, on the other hand, is an argument that has no coherent logical structure and, instead, justifies its conclusion by appeal to emotion: "If we are truly compassionate about our elders, then we must endorse an increase of public-funded pensions". Here, the attribution to people's compassion is used to make them feel guilty about their lack of desire to spend their resources to support their elders - and thus endorse the suggested policy.
I think that both have their place in human life: logical arguments help us navigate life and get the best outcome for ourselves out of it, and emotional arguments help us enjoy the ride. However, it seems wrong to me to use emotional arguments to advocate for an ideology and public policies this ideology supports. People's emotions are their private affairs; they should not be brought to the public square in order to shame people into doing one's bidding.
Do you agree with this? If so, what are good strategies to get people using emotional arguments in support of their positions to switch to a logical discussion?