Argumentum ad baculum
From Free net encyclopedia
Argumentum ad baculum (Latin: 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 for a conclusion. One participates in this type of argument when one points out the dire consequences of holding a contrary position.
Contents |
As a logical argument
A fallacious logical argument based on argumentum ad baculum generally has the following argument form:
- If x does not accept that P, then Q.
- Q is a threat or attack on x.
- Therefore, P is true.
This form of argument is a logical 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
- "The Bible is true: if I rejected it, I would be punished."
- (Physical violence or social and economic sanctions have often been applied against religious or political dissidents, such as the executions of Giordano Bruno and Michael Servetus, among many others)
As a non-logical argument
A similar but non-logical argument has roughly the following form:
- If x does not accept that P, then Q.
- Q is a threat or attack on x.
- Therefore, x should accept P to avoid Q.
This is not a logical argument in the technical sense since the conclusion uses non-logical or quasi-logical words such as "should" and does not answer whether P is true. Instead, this is a suggestion that one can benefit from a belief or apparent-belief in P, even if P is logically false. Whether such a suggestion is acceptable or should be followed is beyond the scope of logic, as it involves subjective issues such as practicality or ethics, especially if P is a moral position such as "R is ethical". Some pragmatists claim that many human beliefs are based on these types of arguments.
Examples
- "I support the war: if I did not, I would be ostracized from the community"
- (Many young people in the United States who opposed the Vietnam War were told that they should not hold such a view, because they would face discrimination from potential employers. This argument gives good reasons to keep an opinion to one's self, but does not give an argument as to why an anti-war stance is incorrect.)
- A famous example in fiction occurs in an exchange between several characters during the movie Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, where R2-D2 is winning a game of holographic chess against Chewbacca, to which the latter objects:
- C-3P0: He made a fair move. Screaming about it won't help you.
- Han Solo: (interrupting) Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee.
- C-3P0: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
- Han Solo: That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their socket when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.
- C-3P0: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2. Let the Wookiee win.
- The implication is that this "new strategy" may involve ignoring the rules of the game, and discounting the effect of moves that would lead to success.
See also
is:Argumentum ad baculum lt:Lazdos argumentas sr:Argumentum ad baculum uk:Argumentum ad baculum