The Rule of Feeling: How Emotionalism Is Undermining Law and Public Reason

When feeling becomes law, justice falters.

A marked feature of contemporary political discourse is the increasing prominence of emotionalism—the prioritisation of subjective feeling over objective reasoning—in shaping law and public policy. While empathy and moral awareness are essential in any humane society, the over-reliance on emotional appeals raises concerns about the coherence, stability, and justice of resulting legislation, particularly in areas requiring ethical nuance and long-term foresight.

Emotionalism, in this context, refers to the dominance of affective responses—such as compassion, outrage, or personal testimony—over empirical evidence, ethical reasoning, and consistent legal principle. In recent years, this tendency has become especially evident in debates over abortion, assisted suicide, gender identity, immigration, and education.

Legislating from Sentiment: Key Examples

In June 2025, Parliament voted to repeal sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, effectively decriminalising abortion and removing nearly all penalties for self-managed procedures in England and Wales¹. The debate was dominated by emotionally charged appeals rather than objective legal and ethical argument. Introducing the amendment, Dame Diana Johnson MP declared:

“Women who end a pregnancy need support, not the threat of a criminal trial. Imagine the trauma of a miscarriage, and then imagine being investigated by the police as though you were a criminal. That is happening in Britain today.”²

This statement exemplified the emotional framing of the reform: invoking miscarriage, trauma, and criminalisation to elicit moral urgency. Broader issues—such as gestational limits, post-viability protection, or the rights of the unborn—were largely eclipsed. Several pro-life MPs, including Kemi Badenoch, raised concern that the legislation eliminated prosecutorial safeguards and created the legal possibility of abortion up to birth in certain scenarios³.

What was conspicuously absent from the debate was any serious engagement with the implicit recognition of unborn human personhood—enshrined both in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and in the very structure of the Abortion Act 1967, which did not legalise abortion outright but instead made provisional exceptions to prosecution for what would otherwise be considered the unlawful killing of a person.

Instead, the chamber was swept along by emotionalist rhetoric that displaced reasoned reflection. This is not how legislators should approach questions of life and law. The deliberate unmaking of legal and moral precedent through rhetorical sleight and sentimental appeal is a betrayal of the dignity of parliamentary governance. When emotionalism supplants philosophical and juridical reasoning, it is not progress but regression—a descent into policymaking by pathos rather than principle.

Parliament also voted in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (Assisted Dying) Bill, permitting physician-assisted suicide for patients with six months or fewer to live. Supporters frequently invoked themes of personal suffering and indignity. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater stated: “Give dying people choice, autonomy, and dignity”⁴. During earlier sessions, MPs recounted emotionally charged stories of watching loved ones die, often moving the chamber to tears⁵. One of the most poignant appeals came from Sir Stephen Timms MP, who said:

“I watched my wife’s mother suffer in the final weeks of her life. She was in pain, terrified, and crying out that she wanted it to be over. No one should be forced to endure that when they are beyond hope of recovery.”⁶

Such deeply personal narratives, while sincere, were used to frame legal change as a moral obligation. Critics of the bill warned that these sentiments, though powerful, were being used to justify significant shifts in the ethical foundations of medicine and end-of-life care—without adequate consideration of coercion, palliative alternatives, or the long-term societal impact.

One of the most striking features of the assisted suicide debate was the scant regard shown by many proponents for the views of professional medical bodies. Despite clear and publicised warnings from the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association, and the Royal Colleges of General Practitioners and Psychiatrists, these objections were largely brushed aside⁷. Their concerns—ranging from the risks to vulnerable patients, to the erosion of the doctor-patient relationship—were eclipsed by emotionally driven assertions of individual autonomy. This marginalisation of institutional expertise demonstrates how emotionalism, when dominant, leads to policymaking detached from professional prudence and ethical safeguards.

This same emotional tenor is evident in UK policy concerning gender identity. NHS guidelines have endorsed gender-affirming interventions—including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones—based on emotional imperatives such as alleviating distress and preventing suicide. However, the Cass Review (2024) found the evidence base for these interventions to be “remarkably weak,” and identified significant long-term risks⁸. The report further documented that some clinicians were reluctant to raise concerns for fear of reputational damage⁹.

In schools, the promotion of gender ideology has similarly leaned on emotional language. Pupils are often encouraged to express chosen identities and pronouns under the guise of kindness and support. Then-Education Secretary Gillian Keegan defended draft guidance by saying it “puts the best interests of all children first”¹⁰. However, as was noted in the House of Lords, *“Actions such as changing names and pronouns are serious and can have a wider impact”*¹¹—a sober warning easily drowned out by emotionally charged rhetoric about safeguarding and affirmation.

Immigration discourse likewise illustrates the prevalence of emotionalism. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper framed recent policy directions in explicitly moral terms: “Defend migrants and develop a system based on ‘compassion and dignity’… safe routes”¹². Yet emotional appeals, while well-intentioned, often obscure critical questions of integration, capacity, legality, and social cohesion. As one MP observed during debate: “The whole debate about immigration is descending into an ugly place where everyone is being asked to take sides”¹³.

Undermining Legal Equality: Selective Application of the Equality Act

Nowhere is the replacement of law with sentiment more structurally apparent than in the inconsistent application of the Equality Act 2010. In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled that “sex” in the Act refers to biological sex, not gender identity¹⁴. This affirmed that single-sex spaces and services—such as prisons, refuges, or sports—may lawfully exclude individuals on the basis of sex, even if they possess a Gender Recognition Certificate¹⁵.

Yet many public bodies continue to act as though the law says the opposite. The Scottish Government, for instance, retained guidance in schools allowing children to socially transition, use opposite-sex facilities, and be affirmed in their chosen identity without parental knowledge—prompting legal warnings from gender-critical campaigners¹⁶. The Equality and Human Rights Commission issued ambiguous guidance suggesting institutions could sidestep sex-based segregation if done in the name of “inclusion”¹⁷.

This has resulted in a two-tier enforcement of the Act:

• Women’s sex-based protections are increasingly bypassed under pressure to be “trans inclusive.”

• Gender identity claims are privileged, even when in direct contradiction to statutory law and judicial interpretation.

The result is legal incoherence. In one setting, courts reject compelled pronoun usage for male defendants in rape trials¹⁸; in another, schools and workplaces encourage staff and pupils to treat gender identity as unquestionable and enforceable. Such inconsistency undermines the rule of law, public confidence, and the very integrity of protected characteristic legislation.

The Dangers of Emotion-Driven Legislation

Legislation shaped primarily by emotionalism produces laws that are reactive, inconsistent, and vulnerable to ideological capture. Several structural risks are especially apparent:

1. Legal Incoherence and Loopholes
In the case of abortion, legal language driven by anecdotal urgency—rather than principled deliberation—resulted in ambiguous gestational boundaries and a lack of clarity on regulatory oversight. Law becomes selectively applied and difficult to defend.

2. Erosion of Professional Ethics
In medicine, emotion-led mandates can undermine professional conscience. Doctors may face pressure to participate in ethically questionable acts, particularly where the appeal to “choice” eclipses the deeper question of whether a given act is morally or clinically justifiable.

3. Weaponisation of Victimhood
Framing certain identity groups as emotionally untouchable—such as “trans youth” under threat of suicide—can result in the silencing of valid medical and educational concerns. The invocation of emotional harm becomes a veto on discussion itself.

4. Suppression of Dissent
Emotional narratives recast disagreement not as debate, but as moral offense. Those who raise concerns about abortion, gender ideology, or immigration policy are accused not of error, but of cruelty.

5. Undermining Rule of Law
When feeling replaces truth as the standard for law, justice becomes unstable. Laws cease to act as a rational safeguard for all and become instead an instrument of cultural mood, vulnerable to manipulation and volatility.

6. Infantilisation of Public Discourse
Finally, emotionalism discourages critical thought and the virtues of citizenship. Public reasoning is replaced by slogans, therapeutic mantras, and reactive policymaking, rendering society less capable of handling complex moral and social questions.

These are not new phenomena. In previous eras of cultural upheaval—the French Revolution being a prime example—reasoned deliberation gave way to emotional fervour, and the results were rarely just or lasting. The tendency to replace law with feeling, deliberation with passion, has historically opened the door to instability, injustice, and tyranny. As C.S. Lewis observed, “The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it.”

Restoring Moral Clarity in Lawmaking

To restore confidence in the rule of law and uphold the common good, a measured response is needed. Parliament could establish a requirement for independent ethical review for legislation concerning life, identity, and medicine. Institutions representing professional, legal, and civic reasoning must not be sidelined by emotionally charged advocacy. Public bodies must be required to align policy with judicial rulings, not activist guidance. The Equality Act must be enforced consistently—not ideologically.

A society ruled by feeling may be momentarily comforted—but it will not endure.

---

Footnotes
¹ The Telegraph, “MPs vote to allow abortion up to birth in UK law,” 18 June 2025.
² Hansard, House of Commons Debate, 2 June 2025, Dame Diana Johnson MP.
³ The Times, “Ministers likely to back 'extreme' plans to decriminalise abortion,” June 2025.
⁴ Kim Leadbeater MP, Hansard, 24 May 2025.
⁵ BBC News, “Commons supports assisted dying bill,” 24 May 2025.
⁶ Sir Stephen Timms MP, Hansard, 20 June 2025.
⁷ Royal College statements, March–May 2025.
⁸ Cass Review, April 2024.
⁹ Ibid., Chapters 6–7.
¹⁰ DfE Press Statement, December 2023.
¹¹ Hansard, House of Lords Debate, March 2024.
¹² Yvette Cooper, quoted in The Telegraph, 4 March 2025.
¹³ Hansard, Immigration Debate, February 2025.
¹⁴ For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers, UK Supreme Court, April 2025.
¹⁵ Ibid.
¹⁶ The Guardian, “Scottish government given deadline to implement biological sex ruling,” 18 June 2025.
¹⁷ EHRC Guidance, May 2025.
¹⁸ The Times, “Judges advised to reject rape defendants’ chosen pronouns,” June 2025.