Starving people in Africa

[AdHoc]

Is it a logical fallacy to show pictures of starving children in Africa?

Yes, if you are using it to argue that one ought to help starving children in Africa.

I personally agree with the answer given to the question above. Showing pictures tugs on a person's heartstrings but if the logic that drives the argument is examined its likely logically flawed.

But it makes me wonder, is there a logical argument that could be put forward that people in the west should help people in Africa?

My heart tells me we should but I have no idea if there is a logical reason for it.

[Nickman]

Is it a logical fallacy to show pictures of starving children in Africa?

Yes, if you are using it to argue that one ought to help starving children in Africa.

I personally agree with the answer given to the question above. Showing pictures tugs on a person's heartstrings but if the logic that drives the argument is examined its likely logically flawed.

But it makes me wonder, is there a logical argument that could be put forward that people in the west should help people in Africa?

My heart tells me we should but I have no idea if there is a logical reason for it.

I would have to see the full context to make a determination. You have the full quote?

Which full quote?

The full quote of the conversation you posted in the OP. What comes before the first line?

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 41 by Nickman]

Here's the transcript of that conversation:

So if a woman's child needs medical care and she makes an emotional plea to a doctor to save her child's life she is irrational?

The emotional plea itself is irrational. Pleading though is very rational, because we all know pulling at people's heart strings works.

I'm not understanding how simply showing pictures could be a logical fallacy?

It's a specific form of the red herring fallacy. Pictures is not relevent to the logic behind an argument.

Is it a logical fallacy to show pictures of starving children in Africa?

Yes, if you are using it to argue that one ought to help starving children in Africa.

I wasn't sure at the time but I accept the possibility that they are avoiding publishing offensive material.

Ok.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 42 by AdHoc]

In this case I would say that they are unnecessary to the argument. They are posted as an emotional appeal to argue that people should help. If the pictures were used to show that Africa is impoverished, then they would be pertinent to the argument.

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 43 by Nickman]

I'm not sure I understand the distinction... If a person were to show pictures of an impoverished nation how is that different than showing pictures of an impoverished body?

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 43 by Nickman]

I'm not sure I understand the distinction... If a person were to show pictures of an impoverished nation how is that different than showing pictures of an impoverished body?

Basically, It would be fine if you were to use a picture of Africa that shows their impoverished state if you were arguing that Africa was impoverished.

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 45 by Nickman]

Ahhh... I understand... but not to argue that anyone should do anything about it.

That makes sense to me.

The point I was hoping to make with this thread is that there may be times when it is wise to temporarily set aside the rules of logic.

I submit that matters of the heart should not be the province of logic alone.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 45 by Nickman]

Ahhh... I understand... but not to argue that anyone should do anything about it.

That makes sense to me.

The point I was hoping to make with this thread is that there may be times when it is wise to temporarily set aside the rules of logic.

I submit that matters of the heart should not be the province of logic alone.

I think that it is perfectly fine outside of debate to use the tactic of showing pictures of starving kids to get people to act upon it. They do it on TV all the time and the commercials are very convincing. It is hard to look at those pictures and not want to do something. To argue that someone should do something in a debate by posting a pic is not debate.

[help3434]

Mmm hmm but if I look at the question purely from a cold logical perspective I don't see alot of strong reasons why I should help someone in Africa except on the off chance that there may be some potential reciprocity.

A cold logical perspective, at least the way you are using the term, is only descriptive, not prescriptive. You use cold logic to figure out what the results of certain actions will be, then you use your values to decide which action to take. Wanting reciprocity is just as much a value as warm fuzzies.

Showing some one a picture of starving children is logical if you think that they think that helping to feed starving children is something they ought to do, but they need to be guilt tripped into actually taking action.

[A Troubled Man]

Is it a logical fallacy to show pictures of starving children in Africa?

Yes, if you are using it to argue that one ought to help starving children in Africa.

I personally agree with the answer given to the question above. Showing pictures tugs on a person's heartstrings but if the logic that drives the argument is examined its likely logically flawed.

But it makes me wonder, is there a logical argument that could be put forward that people in the west should help people in Africa?

My heart tells me we should but I have no idea if there is a logical reason for it.

On one hand, we could look at it from the point of Ayn Rand's Objectivism and find no logical reason for it, while on the other, we can't ignore our evolved traits of compassion and altruism.