I've slightly broadened the original "Appeal to Pity" to "Appeal to Empathy" because "Pity" doesn't quite adequately cover what is a pervasive and terrible rhetological trick.
Let's talk about whaling. Whales are beautiful, majestic, intelligent, social animals that mourn their dead. This is the sort of thing that is said to make us empathise with whales - to make us say, gee, if we were whales, we wouldn't much like to cop an explosive harpoon in the head. Beautiful and majestic? Those are subjective, just things existing in our own heads. Intelligent, social, mourning their dead? All *those* things are true of magpies. Yet we don't have 'Sky Shepherd' blocking roads and lobbying for 20 kph speed limits everywhere to stop the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of roadkilled magpies.
I imagine magpies are just harder for people to empathise with than whales are.
I am very susceptible to the "Appeal to Empathy". I strongly empathised with the whales as soon as my teachers first told me about them and still strongly empathise with them. But - way back then, while we were studying whales, I thought of someone else and empathised with him too. Let me tell you about this man. His father was a whaler. His grandfather was a whaler. He is a proud, competent man about the age I am now. He has a lot of not readily-transferrable skills in a hard, dangerous, skilled, romantic occupation. When I think about the end of whaling I think of him sitting alone on the dole in a tiny apartment in Miyagi prefecture, getting on the turps far too early in the morning and dreaming of the illimitable vistas of the Southern Ocean. I still tear up thinking about that man.
The point is that these appeals to empathy are a lousy way to argue. There are questions we should be asking and trying to solve, rather than just emoting at each other.
First, the easy question. Is whaling a sustainable practice? If it is isn't, we should stop it. No one wants to lose these species.
Second, if it is sustainable, what if anything makes it worse than other ways of harvesting animal protein? *Is* there anything unique about whales that makes their suffering more significant than the suffering of pigs and magpies? Frankly, I don't think our civilisation has its philosophical shit together enough to answer this question. I think the answer is 'no'. Anybody care to mount an argument for the affirmative?
Third, how do we equate the suffering of one whale to the suffering of however many pigs or however many chickens are required to produce the same amount of animal protein? We would not think it was a terrible tragedy if one highly intelligent and personable person sacrificed their life to save a thousand Epsilon semi-morons. Why would it be so bad if a highly intelligent and personable whale sacrificed their life to save a thousand chickens?
But instead of asking these questions, we just appeal to empathy.
I guess this has sort of wandered away from a general critique of the 'Appeal to Empathy'; but the selective appeal to empathy is everywhere, poisoning arguments at the root.