Fear-based Appeals vs Fear Mongering …
A fear-based appeal is an emotional appeal used to illicit feelings of fear and/or panic within a person or a group of people, as a means of persuasion.
Used ethically, this strategy can be a strong tool for well-reasoned argumentation. For example: when making the case against tobacco use, one might cite research linking tobacco use to cancer and/or early mortality rates. The fear of illness/death could be a strong motivator to deter the use of tobacco or encourage people to engage in cessation programming. As long as the research cited is accurate/credible, the strategy is sound.
Fear mongering, on the other hand, is when a person/group works to illicit feelings of fear/panic without providing evidence or support. These are your classic boogeyman arguments
Let’s look at a recent piece of legislation and the current debate …
In the case of LD227, a proposed shield-law designed to protect children/families seeking various forms of medical care, fear is being used on both sides of the argument.
Supporters argue that without this law, children, families, and caregivers may be subject to prosecution from out of state entities for obtaining/providing certain medical services. This claim is not without merit, given that some states (like Idaho) are working to implement laws that would in fact criminalize such activities.
Opponents argue that the law will increase rates of kidnapping and human trafficking. This claim, having no supporting evidence, is considered a logical fallacy (slippery slope) and relies solely on emotional appeal. This being the case, it falls squarely into the category of fear mongering.
The primary difference between these two lines of argumentation is evidence … or lack thereof.
Note: this post was inspired by the article Maine lawmakers weigh bill that would protect access to abortion and gender-affirming care published by News Center Maine on March 5, 2024.
