"Because of the psychological power of rhetoric, words do matter. Words have both a denotation (the meaning) and a connotation (the emotions and associations invoked). Words that have the same denotation can have very different connotations. For example, "police officer" and "pig" (as slang) have the same denotation but different connotations. As would be expected, the ongoing fight over vaccines involves rhetoric."
"In a moral context, "refuse" implies active rejection, and context determines whether its connotation is negative or positive. While not always the case, "refuse" sometimes implies that there is an expectation to accept rather than reject. As would be expected, if what is being refused is seen as morally wrong, then using "refuse" suggests something positive. For example, "Sergeant Jane Doe refused to obey an illegal order" suggests something positive, that Doe actively rejected the order and that there is an expectation that soldiers"
Rhetoric shapes perceptions because words carry both denotation and connotation. Words sharing denotation can evoke different emotions and associations. The "police officer"/"pig" contrast illustrates identical denotation with divergent connotations. Some argue that terms like "refuse" carry manipulative moral pressure compared with neutral alternatives such as "decline." In moral contexts, "refuse" implies active rejection and sometimes presupposes an expectation to accept. Rejecting something seen as morally wrong can render "refuse" positively framed, exemplified by refusing an illegal order. Conversely, "refuse" can also be framed negatively depending on context and evaluative stance.
Read at A Philosopher's Blog
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]