Argument from Consequences

From SkepticWiki

1 Definition
2 Examples
3 Discussion
4 Exceptions to the Rule
5 Related Articles

[edit] Definition

Argument from Consequences (formally, argumentum ad consequentiam, from the Latin for "argument [aimed] is an informal logical fallacy where a participant claims that a statement is true [false] because the consequences are so desirable [undesirable]. In its most general form, the argument runs like this:

If P, then Q
Q is clearly desirable [undesirable]
Therefore, P [not-P]

This is a fallacy because the world does not always act according to our desires.

[edit] Examples

Example 1:

Antagonist: God must exist, because otherwise there would be no purpose to the world.

Example 2:

Antagonist: If evolution were true, humans would be no better than animals.

Example 3:

Antagonist: Of course the jury will acquit me, because otherwise I wouldn't get to spend Christmas with what's left of my family.

[edit] Discussion

Philosophers have identified many different sub-categories of this argument, among them the following (incomplete) list:

Argument from Envy (argumentum ad invidium)

Argument from Fear (argumentum ad metum)

Argument from Flattery (apple polishing)

Argument from Force (argumentum ad baculum)

Argument from Hatred (argumentum ad odium)

Argument from Pity (argumentum ad misericordium)

Argument from Pride (argumentum ad superbium)

Argument from Ridicule

Wishful Thinking

These arguments share the characteristic that the primary reason for the listener to believe is emotional, not logical.

[edit] Exceptions to the Rule

Where the discussion does not concern a fact about the world, but a plan or proposed course of action, it is appropriate to consider the expected consequences and take the action most likely to produce desirable effects. Similarly, if the argument is not that the consequence Q is undesirable, but instead that consequence Q is false, then the argument is not fallacious, as in the following: