Jump to content

Talk:Argumentum ad baculum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Instead of writing phrase we could write term. Sebastian 04:06 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

A related fallacy is the claim that...

How is this a related fallacy? It seems the same to me...

Logical vs Non-logical arguments

[edit]

I attempted a rewrite of the article to address the alleged claim that appeal by force is not a logical fallacy. I am of the opinion that when defined in a specific way, it is necessarily a logical fallacy, resulting in the edit. Shawnc 00:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I changed the phrase "violent consequences" to "dire consequences," hopefully broadening the definition to cover more than just the threat of punishment. If I'm not mistaken, Simon Blackburn defines it the same way in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy.--WadeMcR 06:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I rewrote the bulk of the non-logical section. It's true that the example is not a logical argument, but the reasons were mostly incorrect. Logic is perfectly capable of addressing 'should' (Inductive reasoning). I tried to eliminate terms that aren't commonly defined (e.g. 'quasi-logical'). The assertion that the argument addresses holding a belief in P 'even if P is logically false' isn't why the conclusion is non-logical, so it's removed. This section still needs work, or needs to be scrapped entirely; an article on a logical fallacy needs to address the logical fallacy - not some poorly-worded non-logical variant of it. Tofof 07:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this still needs work. take the following example: 

       Employee: I do not think the company should invest its money into this project.
       Employer: Be quiet or you will be fired.

this is not strictly a fallacy, as i understand it, because it's not pretending to prove a truth claim. it merely has the same effect by suppressing the opposition (which of course has a long and honorable tradition within religion). I would suggest that it becomes a proper baculum fallacy if the employer responds (with a pointed stare): "that opinion is so poor that expressing it will lose you your job". the subsequent job loss is intended to prove, if push comes to shove, the sufficiency of the poverty. i guess i'll make this change, and anybody who wants to establish that a fallacy doesn't need to be an attempt at an argument, or that hitting someone is a type of argument, is welcome to revert the change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.57.184 (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A better (or at least funnier) example

[edit]
  • If not P, then I will beat you up.
  • Therefore P.

=^_^= - ∅ (∅),

Thanks for presenting this as if it were a genuine logical argument. It's both completely valid content and most definitely silly. Excellent. --Kizor 10:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples vs. Non-examples

[edit]

The Chewbacca, 3PO reference is pointless and innaccurate. It doesn't represent an example of logical fallacy. It represents an example of threat being used to advise someone to willingly lose a contest. If Han Solo had instead argued "Wookies are known to pull the arms off people when they lose, therefore he is winning." or if instead of playing chess, they were having a philosophical debate, where a logical argument was in question and threat was used to settle that argument, it would be an example of Argumentum ad baculum.


Moral Relativism

[edit]

I notice that this page seems to heavily endorse moral relativism. I would consider this to be very biased.

Name convention?

[edit]

Is there a naming convention on using the Latin vs. English terms for logical fallacies?

English main, Latin redirects

Latin main, English redirects

Okay, after compiling that list, this article doesn't stand out so badly. Still, it doesn't seem like there's a pattern. It seems likely to me that 'appeal to force' could be more well-known, at least now, than 'argumentum ad baculum'. If this is named in the Latin for historical reasons, then shouldn't 'cum hoc ergo propter hoc' certainly also be a main title, for example?

If there's a more appropriate and/or more general place to discuss this convention, please let me know and I'll move it. Tofof 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Example

[edit]

The following example cited: "You should believe in God, because if you do not, you will go to Hell." Does not seem, to me, to be rightly classified as a logical fallacy. Following the form for this sort of argument, 

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

The cited example certainly fulfills the two premises; however, the conclusion "that God exists is true" is not intended to follow from the premises.

Someone can make the assertion that "If you don't believe in God you will go to Hell." They may be convinced that this is true for many reasons (unspoken presupposition that "God does exist."). And they may sincerely believe that those who don't follow Him will be punished. However, the threat of the punishment, in my experience, is never offered as proof that the initial premise is true.

Therefore, I recommend removing this example from the "logical argument" section, with the possibility of relocating it to the "rhetorical argument" section. Vanwatts 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • They you are assuming that either God could exist and not believing would be fine, or that He/She might not exist, and believing would be fine! It is absolutely clear that when they ask you to believe it goes implied that it is because it exists, and conversely, God existing and you not believing is "unacceptable". I know, the argument does not say "If God doesn't exist, you will go to hell", but it is a circular argument involving that, as God exists, there is hell, and non-believers will be punished. Then, if you do not believe, you will go to hell. Then, since if you do not believe you will go to hell, it means that there is a God who made hell in first place, and will punish you if you do not believe. It is absolutely implied that you will be punished because God does exist (and, circularly, that God exists because you will be punished), so, to me it is a valid example. Look at it this way: the conclusion "Therefore, P is true" is for all means equivalent to "Therefore, x should accept P as true" (which is implied in "If you don't believe in God you will go to Hell"). — Isilanes 16:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The correct form as far as I can see would be a change to "You should believe in my God because if you don't and he is real, you will go to hell". Using inductive reasoning we can see that the point " you should believe in my" implies that that person's concept of God would indeed punish you with hell. But just stating that if you don't believe in God you will go to hell is illogical as you could believe there was no God and be wrong, but that deity was not predisposed to send you to hell for whatever reason. Just stating that if there is a God you will go hell is incorrect because of the countless number of different theoretical God's. But stating that if you don't except my God and he is real, you will go to hell is correct. Because if that person's conception of God is in fact real and you don't believe in him which is a prerequisite of salvation than he will in fact punish you with hell, if that paricular concept of a God does in fact exist. Colin 8 17:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with your first amendment, but I do not like the "my God" expresion, and propose to use "God X" instead. The fact that God X punishes non-believers is implied. However, I disagree with the "if he's real" part, as it takes the fallacy away. Notice that the implied argument (ad baculum) is that God X exists because She'll send you to Hell if you do not accept that She exists! Yes, it is ridiculous, but that's the bottom line of the argument (that's why it's a fallacy). As I point above, the argument is circular (as She exists, She'll punish you. As She'll punish you, She must exist). It is completely implied that God X existing forces you believing in Her inherently, and also that not believing would bring punishment (these are "safe" assumptions in that context). — Isilanes 13:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm a bit thick, but I fail to see how this argument does not more properly fall into the category of the subsequent section in the article, as listed below. It seems to fit exactly into this form.:

A similar but non-logical argument has roughly the following form: 

   If x does not accept P as true, then Q.
       {If you don't believe in God you will go to Hell}
   Q is a punishment on x.
       {Implied: Hell is a punishment on you}
   Therefore, x should accept P to avoid Q.
       {Therefore, you should believe God (to avoid Hell)}
  • No, you are quite right. However, I must be a bit thick myself, because I actually see little difference between the "logical" and "non-logical" arguments... The difference seems to be "it is true" vs. "you should accept it". However, it goes implied that when sb tells you to accept something, it means that this something is true. Otherwise they are openly forcing you to be a hypocrite. In the example of $GOD and Hell, is it obvious that when they tell you that you should believe in $GOD, they imply that She exists. It wouldn't make much sense a preacher saying: "Brothers and sisters, believe in $GOD (even though She doesn't exist), because it's better for you". Anyway, if they are two different arguments (logical and non-logical), the Hell example seems to belong in the latter, as you say. — Isilanes 08:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Example

[edit]
   If you commit the thought crime of not believing in Jesus Christ, you will go to hell.
   Therefore, Jesus Christ is God.

This seems like a bad example to me, because following the formula listed, it should read, "If you do not believe that Jesus Christ is God...", not "If you [do not believe] in Jesus Christ." Also, I think that the term thought crime isn't helpful to this example. First of all, the explicit referencing of 1984 in an example that is specifically about Christianity seems fairly biased to me. It's easy enough to avoid this possible bias in such a simple example! Secondly, the addition of thought crime is irrelevant and doesn't even add anything to the example; it doesn't clarify or make it easier to understand. Valkotukka (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a bad example to me too. If Jesus Christ weren't God, a failure to believe that he is would not result in hell, since no-one would execute that punishment. Doesn't a true ad baculum require that the stick be applied whether or not the proposition is true? Mr gronk (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this an example of Argumentum ad baculum

[edit]

If you don't own a computer, you will lose your competitive edge a lot. Therefore, owning a computer is a must. Joe2008 (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need a fallacious example

[edit]

The only example given in the article is a non-fallacious one. I think we need a fallacious one. Either of the examples given above would be ok with me, but if you don't like those I suggest this: 

CEO: We are going to invest in electrical cars
Manager: but every company that has tried this has failed...
CEO: Stop interrupting me or you won't get raised
Manager: Ok

or on a more controversial tone: 

US president: Irak has WMD, we're going to invade Iraq
Congressman: but we have no proof
President: you're either with me or against me
Congressman: let's invade Iraq

--Yitscar (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first example is not a fallacy because no wrong conclusions have been drawn, and it is even questionably if it is an argumentum ad baculum since, ehm, no arguments have been made, just simple statements.
The same goes for the second example. It seems that all the presented, supposed instances of argumentum ad baculum as being a logical fallacy are not valid because no one actually draws any (wrong) conclusions, and only if this would happen one could speak of fallacy. --62.226.12.183 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Non-fallacious Ad Baculum"

[edit]

The current example is not an Ad Baculum at all.

  • 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.

It is a simple Modus tollens (called here earlier contraposition). It would be Ad Baculum if it said:

  • If you believe that drunk driving is harmless, I will punish you.
  • Drunk driving is harmful.

The given example, however, does not state that a proposition is true or false because of force-related consequences. The original example would only fit the Ad Baculum pattern given in the article if its first line was "If you drive while drunk, someone will be put in jail." and the second was "You will be that someone". Indeed, as someone mentioned earlier on this discussion page, the first two lines can be simplified into one. Anyways, the second line in the "non-fallacious ad Baculum" makes it a modus tollens rather than Ad Baculum.

--JudelFoir (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Non-fallacious Ad Baculum"

[edit]

I am not convinced that The Non-fallacious Ad Baculum is not a fallacy. As a related addendum, I am convinced that legal systems that apply punishments for crimes may very well be based on this fallacy whenever punishments are applied without consideration.

Let us assume that one who drives while drunk is otherwise reasonable and submissive to logical and reasonable arguments. If through a reasonable argument, the driver realises the hazards and social problems with drunk driving and abandons their driving while drunk behaviour, then going to jail cannot further demonstrate the issues with this behaviour. If on the other hand the driver is unreasonable, then neither reason nor jail can demonstrate to the driver the hazards and social problems with drunk driving, but jail may be a useful physical constraint that prevents the driver from driving while drunk.

In both cases, the threat of jail as the reason for not driving while drunk is still a fallacy. 

Runestone1 (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. While the conclusion is true - that you should not drink and drive - kidnapping someone and locking them in a cage to get them to support that conclusion is still an Ad Baculum fallacy. A non-fallacious argument against drinking in driving might go as follows, "If you drink, your judgement is impaired and your reflexes will be delayed. That drastically increases your chances of an accident. Such accidents have been known to kill people. You probably don't want to kill anyone. Ergo, you should give me your keys and let me drive." It is fallacious to threaten someone with jail for them to support your conclusion. Furthermore, I don't think there even is a non-fallacious example of Ad Baculum.

85.237.211.110 (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prudential reasons to take action

[edit]

"A distinction should be made, however, between rational reasons and prudential reasons. No fallacy, the Appeal to Force included, can give rational reasons to believe a conclusion. This one, however, might give prudential reasons for action. If the threat is credible and bad enough, it might provide reason to act as if you believed it." - from the About.com article. Alatari (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fallacious Ad Baculum

[edit]

The current example of a non-fallacious ad baculum is:

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.

The current example of a fallacious ad baculum is, in effect:

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

I don't think this is a fallacious ad baculum argument. It's just a non-sequitur. It's a prediction about the future whose 100% certainty is not warranted by the stated premises.

A better example to use would be:

If you drive while drunk, you will be put in jail.
Therefore, it is wrong to drive while drunk.

Here, the coercion of the state is a fallacious ad baculum argument in favor of the stated conclusion.

In fact, I'd also suggest changing the non-fallacious example by simplifying it, so it better contrasts with the proposed fallacious example:

If you drive while drunk, you will be put in jail.
Therefore, you should not drive while drunk.

Do we really need to state the obvious - that we don't want to go to jail?

--Chuck Messenger (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguish the "might makes right fallacy"

[edit]

Argumentum ad baculum is not accurately representative of the "might makes right" fallacy. Argumentum ad baculum should be emphasized as a rhetorical device referring to a specific exchange representing threat rather than reason. "Might makes right" is usually applied to broader moral justifications like 'social Darwinism' and other circumstances where it is claimed that an entity has "the right" to do something if they have the "might" to do it, regardless of harm done to others, laws broken or any other sound moral considerations being violated. The might makes right comment should be a "see also" rather than a direct association as they are distinct.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Argumentum_ad_baculum&oldid=1198951638"