Why Emotions in Civil Discourse Lead to Problems

Where there are social and political issues, there will always be emotions that follow. Whether or not people like to admit it, sentiments play a huge role in decision making and persuasion. Think about it, have your friends ever guilt tripped you into doing something because they knew you would feel bad? Mine have. They knew how to use my emotions to get me to leave the house and quit watching Netflix in bed. (Slightly kidding- okay, maybe not).

When it comes to emotions in discourse, however, the situation becomes more intense. In general, I believe emotions should be kept to as low a level as possible when it comes to civil discourse, because it can incite very harsh and passionate feelings. That being said, there will always be some emotion in any type of social and/or civil issue- it just goes without saying.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bagogames/19995797742
From the Disney Movie Inside Out that is about emotions and feelings.

As humans, we are subject to feeling emotions; we can be happy, ecstatic, sad, depressed, frustrated, stressed, annoyed, blissful, and so much more. It is completely natural to feel a certain way on various topics, and when it comes to social issues, these feelings are usually intensified as they are tied in with moral beliefs. If you refer to this research brief entitled "Classical Rhetoric, Contemporary Science and Modern Civil Discourse", you will find that it states, "Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian expressed awareness of the manipulative powers of rhetoric and the vulnerability of audiences, and offered guidelines for how rhetoric could be deployed ethically." The article continues on to state how emotions should be used in a positive way as opposed to manipulation when it comes to rhetoric, and I completely agree. 

In this case of civil discourse, it must be understood that ethics will inevitably be tied to a person's emotions towards a subject. For an example of this statement, see my previous post, ""You're Stupid" "No, You're Stupid"" where I discuss rape culture and the Old Dominion fraternity outrage. People tied their emotions to their beliefs on misogyny as well as rape culture; their frustration can clearly be seen in the comments.

Continuing on that subject, the emotions in those comments were sometimes used to undermine other commenters' opinions and arguments (logos). People that disagreed would let their anger get the best of them and suggest that other individuals' arguments were invalid while also undermining their values by suggesting they were not worthy of attention. This then undermined the author's logos by implying her story did not deserve national and international headlines, which also insinuated the concept of rape culture was insignificant in comparison to other political and worldly issues. 

In a world full of social and political issues, it is undoubtedly hard to separate emotions and ethics to give a purely objective standpoint. However, the less influence emotions play, the more rhetoric and persuasion can be based on credible arguments thereby reducing the need to rely on emotions.