In Robert Arp, Steven Barbone & Michael Bruce (eds.),
Bad Arguments. Wiley. pp. 270–272 (
2018-05-09)
Copy
BIBTEX
Abstract
This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'euphemism'. Euphemisms create emotional distance and thus provide a level of comfort and ease when discussing a topic that is sensitive, difficult, or disturbing. In some instances, euphemisms are intentionally used to sway people's opinions or emotions to a particular side, as in the example of politicians' referring to the anti‐abortion position as “pro‐life”, torture techniques as “enhanced interrogation”, or the non‐combatants civilians who die during armed conflict as “collateral damage”. Euphemisms are fallacious because they are intentionally used to conceal the truth and obscure any real meaning; they are soft language used to mask or downplay warranted emotional force. Being ambiguous or vague in meaning brands euphemisms as a type of weasel word. Using honest, direct language and making sure the neutrality deployed is accurate is the best way to avoid euphemisms and weasel wording.