Pathos: ( /ˈpeɪθɵs/; plural: patha or pathea; Greek: πάθος, for "suffering" or "experience;" adjectival form: 'pathetic' from παθητικός) represents an appeal to the audience's emotions. Pathos is a communication technique used most often in rhetoric (where it is considered one of the three modes of persuasion, alongside ethos and logos). (from Wikipedia.org)
I would not be lying if I told you that pathos was one of my least favourite words, things, activities, beings, natural kinds etc.. While it hurts me to my core to say this, pathos has a function, and sometimes a good one at that. While I like to think that people can make arguments to ensure they receive what is justly theirs, the truth is a lot cannot do this. Pathos appeals to something that is at times more universal than other modes of persuasion (reason (logos), ethos); what Hume would call a human 'sensibility' or 'sentimentality'. I think it would be reasonable to assume that this 'sensibility', or at least knowledge of its character, informs pathos. Now, what is it that makes me hate pathos? So glad you asked.
Some things require courage and are unfortunately met with weak will, and this is specifically where I have issues with pathos. The recent student situation in Quebec is a prime example of this. On both sides of the issue (the tuition hike), whether its someone for the hike arguing (or as I like to say 'emoting') that students have it too easy or someone against the hike arguing that students have it too hard, I feel like the mode of persuasion utilized is mostly that of appeal to emotion. One could make an argument for each of these positions in a logical way and that is what vexes me. If the facts illustrated that students were in fact making more than enough money to be in a secure fiscal situation once the hikes had been implemented, and that such a hike would improve our society, then it let it be argued. If it is shown that the hike is in fact too much of a burden for students and that there are reasonable alternatives insofar as funding our educational system goes, then let that be argued as well. The truth is that people resort to pathos, I fear, mostly out of laziness or knowledge that their position is unfounded. Proclaiming that students are lazy in order to give rise to anger, or stating that students have it to hard in order to give rise to pity is a way of forgetting just what it is that makes the issue worth everyone's time. Obviously, the use of pathos to argue 'X' does not effect the truth or untruth of 'X'. It merely, I would submit, takes the intellectual level of a discussion to a low point. Some issues are inherently exigent such that they demand reason from those concerned.
