Understanding the Argument from Consequences: A Logical Fallacy in Action

The Argument from Consequences, also known as an Appeal to Consequences or Argumentum ad consequentiam, is a common logical fallacy that misleads by focusing on the outcomes of a belief rather than its actual veracity. This article explores how this fallacy works in various contexts, including religious arguments and personal beliefs.

The Nature of the Argument from Consequences

The argument from consequences is a type of fallacy that concludes that a belief is true or false based on its desirable or undesirable consequences. It involves emotional manipulation and wishful thinking, which makes it a hazardous method of reasoning. Let's break down how this fallacy operates using specific examples.

The Structure of the Argument from Consequences

The argument from consequences can present itself in two forms:

Positive Form

If P then Q will occur. Q is desirable. Therefore, P is true.

Example: Humans must be able to travel faster than light because that will be necessary for interstellar space travel.

Example: I believe in an afterlife because I want to exist forever.

Negative Form

If P then Q will occur. Q is undesirable. Therefore, P is false.

Example: If there is no God, then there would be chaos, murder, and widespread immorality, so there must be a God.

Application in Everyday Life and Religious Debates

One of the most common manifestations of the argument from consequences can be seen in religious debates. For example, the appeal to fear fallacy is frequently used to justify the existence of a deity. This fallacy often takes the form of scare tactics or worse, emotional manipulation.

Examples in Everyday Religious Argumentation

Better eat your vegetables or the boogeyman will come for you tonight. God must exist or human society would be immoral, lawless, and chaotic.

Logical Flaws in these Fallacies

The logical fallacy lies in assuming that a belief is true simply because it leads to desirable outcomes. For example, saying that God must exist because chaos would ensue if there were no God does not provide a valid proof of God's existence. Similarly, suggesting that faster-than-light travel is necessary for interstellar exploration does not prove the feasibility of such technology.

Personal Experience: A Discussion on God and Morality

Imagine a discussion between two logical individuals, one arguing in favor of the existence of God and the other disagreeing. The discussion starts with a pragmatic approach, focusing on the evidence and proof of divine existence or divine moral rules. However, when the argumentive side encounters a lack of compelling evidence, the argumentative flow shifts to the consequences of non-belief.

The argumentative side might say, "Do you know how badly humans would behave if the 10 Commandments didn't exist? Chaos would reign, cats and dogs would live together, murder would be widespread, incest and adultery would be common, and medicine would be socialized. Do you want that?"

This is a classic example of the argument from consequences. Instead of discussing the actual evidence of God’s existence, the focus is redirected to the potential disastrous outcomes of not believing in God or their morality. However, even if the forecasted consequences are accurate, they do not provide a valid argument for the truth of the belief.

Key Takeaway: The argument from consequences is a fallacy because it assumes the truth of a belief based on its consequences, rather than on its evidence or logical validity.

Conclusion

Understanding the argument from consequences is crucial for evaluating arguments rationally. Whether it is in religious discussions, personal beliefs, or public debates, recognizing this fallacy helps in maintaining a balanced and logical approach to reasoning.