We are 100% user-supported!
Without you, there is no RationalWiki!
|Goal: $5000||Donations so far: $4910|
Help and donate today!
Argumentum ad baculum
|Part of the series on|
 Alternate names
- appeal to force
- appeal to power
- appeal to bribery
The argument takes this form:
- Accepting X leads to action Y against me.
- I do not want action Y to occur to me.
- Therefore, X is not true / not false.
Y could be anything from torture to the loss of a potential bribe, as long as it's motivational and tied to acceptance of a proposition.
 Legitimate use
As the argumentum ad baculum is an appeal to consequences, it's not fallacious if the argument is based on avoiding consequences rather than any truth value:
- If you do X you will suffer punishment Y
- You don't want to suffer punishment Y
- Therefore you shouldn't do X
The danger in holding a premise is irrelevant to the truth of that premise. This argument doesn't make any statement as to whether X is right or wrong, or whether punishment Y should follow action X, only that it's probably not something you want to do.
- If I don't think the boss is nice, I will be fired.
- I don't want to be fired.
- Therefore, I will think the boss is nice.
Perhaps the most simple example would be:
- Believe what I say, or I will hit you.
 Spanish Inquisition
A modified form of the argument was otherwise known as the Inquisitorial Question, and took this form:
- If person A denies being a heretic, then we will torture A.
- Therefore, A is a heretic.
It proved very useful for getting almost all the Inquisition's targets to admit they were heretics. It may also have been effective because nobody expected it.
 Nothing to do with
 See also
- ↑ But you have to admit that would be funny