Activist organizations pushing an agenda they feel passionat= ely for often use fallacious arguments in an effort to convince others. It is n= ot difficult to find examples from all organizations across the political spectrum, and their arguments have many similarities despite their various opinions. In 2003, the activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, used an exhib= it that compared the slaughter of chickens to Holocaust victims in an effort to convince people to s= top eating meat (Lynne, 2003). In doing so, they provided a fine example of several fallacious arguments activists are typically guilty of: An appeal to emotion, using a false analogy, and the use of a red herring.
When someone uses the fallacy of appeal to emotion, he or she uses an “argument which atte= mpts to arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion” (Curtis, 2005, Emotional Appeal). For many, strong emotions trump rational thought, and those who use the appeal to emotion= fallacy hope the emotional button they push will prevent critical thought o= f their argument. This sort of argument occurs often in political speeches, as most= are “aimed at generating feelings in people so that these feelings will g= et them to vote or act a certain way” (Labossiere, 2005, Description of Ap= peal to Emotion). It is no coincidence that the typical successful politician knows how to push the emotional buttons of his or her constituents.
The emotional appeal has the advantage of motivating people = at a much deeper level than logical arguments. “Logical argumentation is o= ften difficult and time consuming and it rarely has the power to spurn people to action” (Labossiere, 2005, Description of Appeal to Emotion). A good example of using the emotional appeal for such effect is that of a sports coach motivating his team to victory. Carefully explaining the importance of a win-loss record is not as effective as associating victory with the emotion of pride.
In their exhibit, PETA is trying to evoke the same sympathy = for chickens as victims of the Holocaust. Certainly, few images can inspire as strong an emotion as seeing innocent human beings tortured, starved, and murdered as they were during the Nazi regime. PETA attempts to transfer the= se same emotions to chickens in their exhibit by “using explicit and gra= phic images of fluffy white chickens crowded into barnyard cages and emaciated adults and children peering out from behind barbed wire at the death camps” (Lynne, 2003). <= /p>
Matt C. Abbot, a conservative columnist and commentator, poi= nts out “Writers are often justified in appealing to the pity of their readers when the need to inspire this emotion is closely related to whatever they are arguing for, and when the entire argument does not rest on this ap= peal alone” (Abbott, 2004). = The images of chickens and Holocaust victims, however, are clear examples of an argument based solely on emotional outrage. In addition, it is an example of using a false analogy.
A false analogy “occurs when an arguer compares two (or more) things that aren’t really comparable in relevant respects” (Bassham, Irwin, Nardone, & Wall= ace, 2002, chap. 6). Using an analogy to support an argument can be a valid tactic, when the analogous items are close enough to support the premise. Nevertheless, all analogies are false to a degree because no two items or circumstances are identical. Some analogies are weaker than others are, and thus do not support the premise of the argument. Such is the case with PETA’s analogy of the plight of farm animals to that of Jews in Nazi concentration camps.
It is safe to say that PETA equates animal life with human l= ife, so they would consider the analogy sound. However, it is also safe to say t= hey are in the extreme minority with that opinion, judging by the amount of ani= mal products consumed by the economies of the world. Most people would agree th= at “the extermination of animals for the purpose of providing food and clothing cannot be placed in the same moral category as the extermination of human beings for the purpose of creating a master race" (Abbott, 2004)= . As well as being a weak analogy, it is also a highly inflammatory analogy for Jewish people. Joel Richler, chair of the Canadian Jewish Congress, comment= ed, “The analogy is obscene and insults the memory of the millions who perished in Nazi death camps” (World Jewish Congress, 2004). In many respects, of course, the outcry and indignation of this faulty and inflammatory analogy is exactly what PETA wa= nts to draw attention to their concerns.
Because Adolf Hitler and the Nazis are such easy rhetorical targets due to their unimaginable inhumanity, they become a trump card in uncivil and fallacio= us arguments used by all sides against the other. As a rule, I consider the fi= rst side of an argument to use the Hitl= er Card to be the side that is losing the argument. It is ironic however; = while PETA might use this fallacious analogy in an effort to convince people to s= top eating meat, their opponents could point out that Hitler himself was a stri= ct vegetarian, which is another fallacious argument (Curtis, 2005, The Hitler Card).=
Another fallacy used in the context of the PETA exhibit is t= he argument that vegetarianism is the only way to feed the growing population. PETA cites a Population Reference Bureau report stating, "If everyone adopted a vegetarian diet and no food were wasted, current [food] production would theoretically feed 10 billion people, more than the projected populat= ion for the year 2050” (Abbott,= 2004). This statement may or may not be true, but in the context of the exhibit, i= t is a red herring.
A red herring ar= gument “is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question throu= gh the introduction of some irrelevancy” (Curtis, 2005, Red Herring). To = follow an argument from premise to conclusion, the points in between need to relate and support the argument. Making irrelevant points within an argument only serves to confuse the intended audience as to your conclusion.
The premise of the PETA argument is that people should not e= at meat. Thrown into the mix of their argument is a statistic saying the world population can survive on a vegetarian diet. This is an irrelevant argument because “no evidence is given to show that a growing human population cannot be fed in a non-vegetarian way” (Abbott, 2004). Within the conte= xt of their premise, this statistic is a red herring that does not support the premise.
Like other activist groups, PETA has every right to express = their opinions and attempt to convince others of the logic of their position. However, in their effort to support their premise in the most attention-grabbing way they resort to fallacious arguments – again, l= ike most activist groups. Using fallacious arguments to support your premise may score some rhetorical points, but the ultimate logic of your conclusion is = open to question by anyone applying critical-thinking skills.
References
Abbott, M. C. (2004, Nov=
ember
5). PETA, fallacies, and a controve=
rsial
ad campaign. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/041105
Bassham, G., Irwin, W., =
Nardone,
H., & Wallace, J. M. (2002). Cr=
itical
Thinking.
Curtis, G. N. (2005). Fallacy Files. Retrieved March 14,= 2005, from http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.h= tml
Labossiere, M. C. (2005)= . Fallacies. Retrieved March 14, 200= 5, from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fall= acies/
Lynne, D. (2003, Februar= y 25). PETA likens chickens to Holocaust victims. World Net Daily, 2003, Feb. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from <= span style=3D'mso-bookmark:R384259033796296'>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a= rticle.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3D31211
World Jewish Congress (2= 004, September 9). “OutrageousR= 21; exhibit by PETA. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/= nfo/article.cfm?id=3D1514
PETA Fallacies 3