Against the Irrationality Argument for Fictional Emotions

According to Colin Radford, our apparent emotional ability to respond to fictional characters and events is “irrational, incoherent, and inconsistent.” His thesis is based on the assumption that existence beliefs are necessary for us to be rationally moved by something and that such beliefs are lacking when we read works of fiction. But since it happens that such works do move us at times, he concludes straightforwardly that our capacity for emotional response to fiction is irrational. The aim of this paper is to analyze the arguments Radford gives in favour of his thesis and to put them to the test. In particular, I will examine the lie argument, the stuffed tiger argument and the tennis player argument. They do not seem to work and therefore I will conclude that Radford’s irrationalist solution to the paradox of fiction is wrong.