Argumentum ad baculum

Cogito ergo sum Logic and rhetoric

Key articles

Logical fallacy Syllogism Argument

General logic

The Fine Art of Baloney Detection Four-term fallacy Substituting explanation for premise Regression fallacy Gambler's fallacy Confirmation bias

Bad logic

Sheeple Ipse dixit Toupee fallacy Envenenar o poço Argument from desire Conjunction fallacy v - t - e

An argumentum ad baculum (Latin: "argument to the stick") is a logical fallacy in which the arguer threatens their debate opponent with real or threatened violent or nonviolent coercion.

As with the appeal to bribery, it is the offer of a pleasant consequence if you go along with the argument.

The fallacy is an appeal to fear, an argument from consequences, and an informal fallacy.

Alternate names

• appeal to force
• appeal to power
• appeal to bribery

Form

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 (such as countering epistemological nihilism):

P1: If you do X you will suffer punishment Y.

P2: You don't want to suffer punishment Y.

C: Therefore you shouldn't do X.

Explanation

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.

Examples

1. If I don't think the boss is nice, I will be fired.
2. I don't want to be fired.
3. 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

See the main article on this topic: 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

The actual baculum in animal anatomy. As such, this is not "Argument to the penis bone", especially since humans lack said bone.

See also

• Threat

External links

• See the Wikipedia article on Argumentum ad baculum.
• Appeal to Bribery, Bruce Thompson
• TvTropes' article on this subject