Emotional arguments and the nebulous concept of "freedom"

So, one of the things I've long been noticing with debates, are emotional appeals with little backing to them.  This seems to be a much more widespread use of argument in the United States than in other countries, but I could be wrong.

This is especially true when it comes to politics and political decisions, which is also where the US government differs from many others.  The leaders in the US aren't just seen as someone to run the country and solve situations as they come up, but as a force to instill your beliefs on others.  Contentious issues like abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, etc. are put up as major issues to be decided by the president, and if you're a conservative Republican that actually is fine with gay marriage and some forms of abortion, you better not come out and say it, or your party will put pressure on you to conform to their moral stance.  This is a terrible way of running politics, especially when it's more pathos than logos based, and especially when it's based on one particular religious perspective that is not shared amongst all religions.

Now, what do I mean by "pathos-based"?  Well, that's simple enough to explain for those that are not familiar with it.  There are three components to a well-made argument; ethos, pathos, and logos.  Ethos has to do with the speaker's credibility, and let's face it, not a lot of people work to establish this, especially those that start an argument with an ad hominem attack.  Logos is the logic used to support a claim; facts, statistics, observations, etc. fall into logos.  Pathos is the emotional appeal of a claim; vivid language, emotional language, and numerous sensory details.

Saying, for instance, that you support the idea of freedom, of a brighter future, of a future where humans can be happy, etc. is a pathos-based argument.  But without the supporting logos or ethos, it has no real effect on others, and in fact obfuscates issues instead of leading to an intellectually honest debate.  For instance, let's just say that I'm of the opinion that healthcare should be provided to those with disabilities.  Now, one argument against this (as shown on the Daily Show recently) was, "I support freedom!"  That is a pathos-based argument; YOU support freedom, I support tyranny, neverminding the nebulous nature of the word "freedom" (which I'll get into later).  A better response would be to show why this kind of coverage would be a necessarily bad thing; if you can show that the people that would be covered wouldn't be any better off and the previous buyers of healthcare would be put into such a difficult spot, then you'd have a better argument.  Of course, it is also possible to build an argument based on bad logos; relying on studies that you've cherry-picked specifically to demonstrate your point and forgetting that ever important point "...but these other studies show...", or by relying on the claims of someone who specifically has falsified claims or invents studies altogether without citing sources.

Now, the thing about "I'm for freedom!" is that freedom is a very moldable concept.  For instance:  I'm for freedom.  A conservative is for freedom.  All Americans are for freedom.  But freedom for who?  I'm not for freedom of criminals; while I think our prison systems could use an overhaul, I'd be just fine with locking up convicted murderers and serial killers and rapists.  I think we could agree on that.  I AM for foreign prisoners of war -- including those suspected of terrorist actions -- to be dealt with in a way that respects their rights as human beings, but there's many people that would disagree with me, and this has led innocent people to be held in secret prisons where their treatment isn't good.  But there's a deeper thing here that falls under the basic principles of human logic; we're very very good at twisting ideas of freedom, and one of the big examples I would like to pull up involves the antebellum south, specifically involving slavery.

See, when the US became independent and people hashed out a constitution, there was agreement that it would be to represent freedom.  Freedom of the US to be independent and have self-determination, but also freedom for the people in general to be represented in their government, and even the overall overriding idea of freedom for the individual in a more moral fashion.  But freedom for who?  For the African slave?  Oh no, not for them for sure!  With that special form of chattel slavery, in fact, it's not just the slave but their children that are also made slaves -- including children fathered by white men.  There also wasn't freedom for the woman; they could not vote and had little voice.  When the Irish immigrants came, I don't think they felt free when they were kept starving and unable to get jobs, so you can't say the idea supported all white males either.

Still, slavery was the topic I recently studied in my Civil War class for this semester, so it's the one I've had on my mind specifically.  See, the thing about the nebulous definition of "freedom" is that the antebellum South felt that slavery made people free.  "People" didn't include the slaves, of course, but they came up with paternalistic explanations for taking care of slaves; the slaves were provided for, were happier than if they were free, and if a slave was punished, it wasn't because the master was cruel but because the slave was like a misbehaving child that needed to be punished by their betters.  "Punishment" wasn't just beating, whipping, or sometimes even killing though.  "Punishment" could include selling a woman's children so that she'd never see them again, or splitting up friends and family.  So as you can probably already see, their ideas didn't really hold much water, but for them it did.  From their perspective, they were for freedom, and this is why...

See, without a slave to do the household chores and the farming, a white family doesn't have much spare time.  They aren't "free", they have to do menial labor.  The housewife does sewing, cooking, teaching the children, etc.; which, back then, was pretty much a full-time job! Men were doing the farming, often of cash crops that were not easy to process.  Slaves would free up the family, making them able to focus on more cerebral tasks.  Of course, not every family had a slave in the south, and in fact a small percentage did.  But it was part of the dream of most people wanting to rise in Southern society to own a slave someday.  The best slave you could try to get, on a limited budget?  Well, your best investment would be a black woman.  You can then breed children by her, and sell the children off to make money or use the children as slaves as well.  Think about that for a second; you're making your family more "free" and investing in that ideal by selling your own children.  This is baffling logic that really made southern society schizophrenic.  You had the idea that housewives were more free and happier now, but they were often jealous of their husbands, constantly suspecting them of sleeping with the black slaves.  Furthermore, women had to uphold a standard of "purity", while also beating and disciplining the house slaves, which fell under their jurisdiction -- the home.  You were supposed to treat slaves as if you were the parent and they were the child... but then you'd lash them and sell them off in ways you would NEVER treat your child.

So, very few Americans today support slavery, so why do I bring this up?  Well, to show that we tend to be VERY myopic when it comes to ideas of "freedom", and logic can be distorted to support it.  Wolf hunters claim that they want the "freedom" to engage in hunting and so do support their freedom, they have to wipe out wolves, and the implication is that the US government is tyrannical when it tries to stop them from doing so.  Some evangelists proclaim they want the "freedom of religion" to force others to their particular religion, wishing to institute required group prayer in schools... which will necessarily be to one god of one belief in one specific fashion.  Many support the idea of "freedom" from terrorism by engaging in foreign wars and also support the idea of people being held in secret prisons, where legal loopholes keep their rights from being recognized.  Some animal extremists, such as PETA, thinks that the idea of freedom should apply to animals as well, and take such conclusions to extreme and irrational lengths.

Now, naturally I don't agree with those I mention above, but some people do.  The thing is, "freedom" is a subjective argument.  No one is fully for freedom; not for criminals, not for animals kept as pets, not for prisoners of war, not even for people that enlist in the armed forces.  "Freedom" is an ideal that's thrown around, often when someone is seeking to justify the killing of other men, or because they want to do something that's a hobby or controversial, or because there's risk of something changing in society that you've gotten used to, no matter how minor.

To paraphrase Aldous Huxley again (I have to admit, I've become a recent fan of him), the subjectivity of morality has to be tempered with the objectivity of results.  If your head is in the sky and you walk around talking about how all animals should be set free, or all wolves are a problem for wildlife, etc., you're more likely to do harm than good.  We're only human, and your moral code has to take in the facts of nature and the limits of human endurance and social life.

Emotional appeals need backing to them.  Studies cannot be cherry picked to justify a subjective viewpoint. Intellectual honesty should be practiced by everyone, not just those whose jobs require it.  Since "freedom" can justify anything, it really can't justify anything alone.  And, I feel, this entire world could deal with quite a bit more introspection.