Jump to content

Argumentum ad baculum: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
m Dating maintenance tags: {{Source?}}
External links: External link
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 52: Line 52:
==External links==
==External links==
*[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adbacula.html Fallacy Files article on Argumentum ad Baculum]
*[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adbacula.html Fallacy Files article on Argumentum ad Baculum]
*[https://logfall.wordpress.com/argumentum-ad-baculum/ Logfall | Argumentum ad baculum]: Logical fallacies site addressing the ''argumentum ad baculum'' fallacy with examples.

{{Red Herring Fallacy}}
{{Red Herring Fallacy}}
{{Informal fallacy}}
{{Informal fallacy}}

Revision as of 07:23, 16 March 2015

Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for "argument to the cudgel" or "appeal to the stick"), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification. It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences. For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the "Might Makes Right" fallacy.[citation needed]

As a logical argument

A fallacious argument based on argumentum ad baculum generally proceeds as follows:

If x accepts P as true, then Q.
Q is a punishment on x.
Therefore, P is not true.

This form of argument is an informal fallacy, because the attack Q may not necessarily reveal anything about the truth value of the premise P. This fallacy has been identified since the Middle Ages by many philosophers. This is a special case of argumentum ad consequentiam, or "appeal to consequences".

Example

  • Employee: I do not think the company should invest its money into this project.
    Employer: That opinion is sufficiently poor that expressing it will get you fired.

The non-fallacious ad baculum

An ad baculum argument is fallacious when the punishment is not meaningfully related to the conclusion being drawn. Many ad baculum arguments are not fallacies.[1] For example:

If you drive while drunk, you will be put in jail.
You want to avoid going to jail.
Therefore you should not drive while drunk.

This is called a non-fallacious ad baculum. The inference is valid because the existence of the punishment is not being used to draw conclusions about the nature of drunk driving itself, but about people for whom the punishment applies. It would become a fallacy if one proceeded from the first premise to argue, for example, that drunk driving is immoral or bad for society. Specifically, the above argument would become a fallacious ad baculum if the conclusion stated:

Therefore you will not drive while drunk.

if using the form as above:

If x does P, then Q.
Q is a punishment on x.
Therefore, x should not do P.

See also

References

  1. ^ Woods, John. Irvine, Andrew. Walton, Douglas. Argument, Critical Thinking, Logic and the Fallacies