Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 1,44 (click to see context) from:
[[quoteright:350:https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/appeal_to_consequences.JPG]]
->"You see the little rift? ‘Believe this, not because it’s true, but for some other reason.’ That’s the game[.]"
-->--'''[[Literature/TheScrewtapeLetters Screwtape]]''', Letter 23
!!!'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences Appeal to Consequences]]''':
:: The truth or falsity of a statement is decided by the positive or negative consequences of it.
-->If global warming is occurring ''and'' is caused by humans, then we are obligated to do something to stop or slow it.
-->The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
-->The short term costs of cutting carbon emissions would be economically devastating.
-->Q.E.D: Global Warming is either not occurring, not caused by humans, or both.
:: Or, conversely,
-->If global warming is occurring ''and'' is caused by humans, then we are obligated to do something to stop or slow it.
-->The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
-->The long-term economic benefits of stopping global warming will be enormous.
-->Q.E.D.: Global warming is both occurring ''and'' caused by humans.
:: Ain't it fun when you can use the same fallacy and essentially the same argument and "prove" diametrically opposite conclusions?
: For contrast, the following is ''not'' Appeal To Consequences:
-->Human industry is producing massive amounts of CO[[subscript:2]].
-->CO[[subscript:2]] causes climate change regardless of source.
-->Even minor alterations to the Earth's climate would be catastrophic for humanity.
-->Q.E.D.: If humans wish to destroy themselves, humans should maintain or increase their current carbon emissions.
:: A contingent statement is established based on absolute facts forming a chain of cause and effect.
!!! Examples:
* Lord Denning actually used this as a reason to quash the Birmingham Six's appeal against their conviction. If they were guilty, it would have been a waste of time letting them appeal to trial. If they were innocent, he argued, it means that the police must have lied and forged confessions. If the police really did lie, this would be really bad for society. Therefore, they must be guilty.
** Lord Denning was by this point beginning to show the strain of being 81 years old, and was likely doing what he always did (deciding the case on instinct and constructing a legal justification for his decision), just without his normal adeptness. The Birmingham Six's alibi was "we couldn't have done the bombing because we were going to an IRA funeral", which probably meant Denning had already decided they were guilty of ''something'' and was trying to find a way to make that law.
* Child molestation accusations, also a case of AppealToFear. It's horrible to have an active child molester roaming around, so [[ConvictedByPublicOpinion people accused of child molestation are often never trusted again by society, whether there's any proof of it or not]]. Taking note of this trope in this instance, though, can cause the opposite problem: assuming an accused child molester is innocent when they're not, because [[AbominationAccusationAttack it'd be horrible to accuse someone wrongly of child molestation]]. The issue is a very polarizing instance of this appeal, which is why there was (and continues to be) so much drama over Music/MichaelJackson and Creator/WoodyAllen.
* An argument for the existence of god (any god, logical fallacies aren't picky) is how much life would suck if there was no god (e.g. we would all become {{straw nihilist}}s). Conversely, some atheists claim exactly the opposite, that life would suck if gods did exist (e.g. all of existence would be a totalitarian {{Dystopia}}). Bear in mind though, that either side isn't necessarily making this fallacy, and may just try to say their opinion. However, it can be hard to tell. The religious argument misses that whether or not god ''exists'' is a totally different question than whether or not it would be "good" to ''believe'' in god. From the conviction that it ''is'' good to believe -- and it is ''not'' good not to believe [[note]]Especially when atheism and (straw) nihilism are falsely claimed to be the same or whenever atheism is falsely claimed to lead to immorality[[/note]] - with this trope they fallaciously conclude god exists (whether or not this happens to be the case).[[note]]Religious people who believe in something which cannot be proven to be true as a value ''as such'' consider this belief as a (the?) reason that life doesn't suck. However, since this belief nowadays mostly is in no way based on knowledge -- and isn't on ''purpose'' -- the existence of a god doesn't ''cause'' their (or anybodies) beliefs at all. (Which had to be the case for the religious argument to be true.) They would believe in god just the same if god didn't exist and would not notice a difference since they just do not know if god exists and admit this to be the case. (Religious beliefs based on the claim that god's existence is proven and thus is knowledge are possible too, but atheists of course disagree.)[[/note]] The atheist opposite claim doesn't have to be well argued but does make this distinction.
* Likewise, evolution is often claimed by creationists to have all sorts of horrible consequences if true, quickly summed up as "If we're descended from monkeys, then we will act like monkeys," and of course the [[HitlerAteSugar eugenics argument]]. Besides most of these negative consequences being false or irrelevant (if humans are apes, then to act "like an ape" does not preclude acting like a human), the desirability of common ancestry has nothing to do with its truth value.
* {{Deconstruction}} can end up like this if done in a sloppy manner.
* Some Holocaust deniers will argue that the Holocaust being true provides a justification for the Israeli treatment of Palestinians and that it lends credence to American neoconservatives citing UsefulNotes/WorldWarII as a model for a "just war". Of course, neither of these things affect the reality of the Holocaust (they would also require dubious logic).
!!! Looks like this fallacy but isn't
* Long-term decision making. You are planning on something that cannot be proven to exist, and therefore, it is impossible for logic to come to an absolutely true conclusion about it and you can only foresee a possible consequence. Consequential arguments are generally not fallacious if used in decision-making with something that cannot be objectively provable -- i.e., (desirable/undesirable, or morally right/morally wrong, not is it true). There is no "real" decisive position, such as a tax rate or drug policy. This is why arguments from consequences are (sometimes) accepted as valid in law and ethics (e.g. {{utilitarianism}}). The main difference is that consequentialist theories (like, but not limited to, utilitarianism) see consequences as a valid moral reason to actually ''carry out'' a certain ''action'' or not instead of a reason for a ''claim being true or false''. This particularly includes questions about whether or not a particular course of action is desirable. Almost inevitably, the truth or falsity of the statement "Doing X is desirable" is subjective, and almost as inevitably, the subjective truth or falsity depends in whole or in part on X's consequences.
* Any case where the argument is based on avoiding consequences rather than any particular truth value. For example, "You should not jump into an active volcano, because if you do so you will die horribly" is not an appeal to consequence, because the fact that you will die horribly is not presented as making the statement true.
->"You see the little rift? ‘Believe this, not because it’s true, but for some other reason.’ That’s the game[.]"
-->--'''[[Literature/TheScrewtapeLetters Screwtape]]''', Letter 23
!!!'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences Appeal to Consequences]]''':
:: The truth or falsity of a statement is decided by the positive or negative consequences of it.
-->If global warming is occurring ''and'' is caused by humans, then we are obligated to do something to stop or slow it.
-->The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
-->The short term costs of cutting carbon emissions would be economically devastating.
-->Q.E.D: Global Warming is either not occurring, not caused by humans, or both.
:: Or, conversely,
-->If global warming is occurring ''and'' is caused by humans, then we are obligated to do something to stop or slow it.
-->The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
-->The long-term economic benefits of stopping global warming will be enormous.
-->Q.E.D.: Global warming is both occurring ''and'' caused by humans.
:: Ain't it fun when you can use the same fallacy and essentially the same argument and "prove" diametrically opposite conclusions?
: For contrast, the following is ''not'' Appeal To Consequences:
-->Human industry is producing massive amounts of CO[[subscript:2]].
-->CO[[subscript:2]] causes climate change regardless of source.
-->Even minor alterations to the Earth's climate would be catastrophic for humanity.
-->Q.E.D.: If humans wish to destroy themselves, humans should maintain or increase their current carbon emissions.
:: A contingent statement is established based on absolute facts forming a chain of cause and effect.
!!! Examples:
* Lord Denning actually used this as a reason to quash the Birmingham Six's appeal against their conviction. If they were guilty, it would have been a waste of time letting them appeal to trial. If they were innocent, he argued, it means that the police must have lied and forged confessions. If the police really did lie, this would be really bad for society. Therefore, they must be guilty.
** Lord Denning was by this point beginning to show the strain of being 81 years old, and was likely doing what he always did (deciding the case on instinct and constructing a legal justification for his decision), just without his normal adeptness. The Birmingham Six's alibi was "we couldn't have done the bombing because we were going to an IRA funeral", which probably meant Denning had already decided they were guilty of ''something'' and was trying to find a way to make that law.
* Child molestation accusations, also a case of AppealToFear. It's horrible to have an active child molester roaming around, so [[ConvictedByPublicOpinion people accused of child molestation are often never trusted again by society, whether there's any proof of it or not]]. Taking note of this trope in this instance, though, can cause the opposite problem: assuming an accused child molester is innocent when they're not, because [[AbominationAccusationAttack it'd be horrible to accuse someone wrongly of child molestation]]. The issue is a very polarizing instance of this appeal, which is why there was (and continues to be) so much drama over Music/MichaelJackson and Creator/WoodyAllen.
* An argument for the existence of god (any god, logical fallacies aren't picky) is how much life would suck if there was no god (e.g. we would all become {{straw nihilist}}s). Conversely, some atheists claim exactly the opposite, that life would suck if gods did exist (e.g. all of existence would be a totalitarian {{Dystopia}}). Bear in mind though, that either side isn't necessarily making this fallacy, and may just try to say their opinion. However, it can be hard to tell. The religious argument misses that whether or not god ''exists'' is a totally different question than whether or not it would be "good" to ''believe'' in god. From the conviction that it ''is'' good to believe -- and it is ''not'' good not to believe [[note]]Especially when atheism and (straw) nihilism are falsely claimed to be the same or whenever atheism is falsely claimed to lead to immorality[[/note]] - with this trope they fallaciously conclude god exists (whether or not this happens to be the case).[[note]]Religious people who believe in something which cannot be proven to be true as a value ''as such'' consider this belief as a (the?) reason that life doesn't suck. However, since this belief nowadays mostly is in no way based on knowledge -- and isn't on ''purpose'' -- the existence of a god doesn't ''cause'' their (or anybodies) beliefs at all. (Which had to be the case for the religious argument to be true.) They would believe in god just the same if god didn't exist and would not notice a difference since they just do not know if god exists and admit this to be the case. (Religious beliefs based on the claim that god's existence is proven and thus is knowledge are possible too, but atheists of course disagree.)[[/note]] The atheist opposite claim doesn't have to be well argued but does make this distinction.
* Likewise, evolution is often claimed by creationists to have all sorts of horrible consequences if true, quickly summed up as "If we're descended from monkeys, then we will act like monkeys," and of course the [[HitlerAteSugar eugenics argument]]. Besides most of these negative consequences being false or irrelevant (if humans are apes, then to act "like an ape" does not preclude acting like a human), the desirability of common ancestry has nothing to do with its truth value.
* {{Deconstruction}} can end up like this if done in a sloppy manner.
* Some Holocaust deniers will argue that the Holocaust being true provides a justification for the Israeli treatment of Palestinians and that it lends credence to American neoconservatives citing UsefulNotes/WorldWarII as a model for a "just war". Of course, neither of these things affect the reality of the Holocaust (they would also require dubious logic).
!!! Looks like this fallacy but isn't
* Long-term decision making. You are planning on something that cannot be proven to exist, and therefore, it is impossible for logic to come to an absolutely true conclusion about it and you can only foresee a possible consequence. Consequential arguments are generally not fallacious if used in decision-making with something that cannot be objectively provable -- i.e., (desirable/undesirable, or morally right/morally wrong, not is it true). There is no "real" decisive position, such as a tax rate or drug policy. This is why arguments from consequences are (sometimes) accepted as valid in law and ethics (e.g. {{utilitarianism}}). The main difference is that consequentialist theories (like, but not limited to, utilitarianism) see consequences as a valid moral reason to actually ''carry out'' a certain ''action'' or not instead of a reason for a ''claim being true or false''. This particularly includes questions about whether or not a particular course of action is desirable. Almost inevitably, the truth or falsity of the statement "Doing X is desirable" is subjective, and almost as inevitably, the subjective truth or falsity depends in whole or in part on X's consequences.
* Any case where the argument is based on avoiding consequences rather than any particular truth value. For example, "You should not jump into an active volcano, because if you do so you will die horribly" is not an appeal to consequence, because the fact that you will die horribly is not presented as making the statement true.
to:
->"You see the little rift? ‘Believe this, not because it’s true, but for some other reason.’ That’s the game[.]"
-->--'''[[Literature/TheScrewtapeLetters Screwtape]]''', Letter 23
!!!'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences Appeal to Consequences]]''':
:: The truth or falsity of a statement is decided by the positive or negative consequences of it.
-->If global warming is occurring ''and'' is caused by humans, then we are obligated to do something to stop or slow it.
-->The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
-->The short term costs of cutting carbon emissions would be economically devastating.
-->Q.E.D: Global Warming is either not occurring, not caused by humans, or both.
:: Or, conversely,
-->If global warming is occurring ''and'' is caused by humans, then we are obligated to do something to stop or slow it.
-->The most effective way to do so is for businesses to cut down on carbon emissions.
-->The long-term economic benefits of stopping global warming will be enormous.
-->Q.E.D.: Global warming is both occurring ''and'' caused by humans.
:: Ain't it fun when you can use the same fallacy and essentially the same argument and "prove" diametrically opposite conclusions?
: For contrast, the following is ''not'' Appeal To Consequences:
-->Human industry is producing massive amounts of CO[[subscript:2]].
-->CO[[subscript:2]] causes climate change regardless of source.
-->Even minor alterations to the Earth's climate would be catastrophic for humanity.
-->Q.E.D.: If humans wish to destroy themselves, humans should maintain or increase their current carbon emissions.
:: A contingent statement is established based on absolute facts forming a chain of cause and effect.
!!! Examples:
* Lord Denning actually used this as a reason to quash the Birmingham Six's appeal against their conviction. If they were guilty, it would have been a waste of time letting them appeal to trial. If they were innocent, he argued, it means that the police must have lied and forged confessions. If the police really did lie, this would be really bad for society. Therefore, they must be guilty.
** Lord Denning was by this point beginning to show the strain of being 81 years old, and was likely doing what he always did (deciding the case on instinct and constructing a legal justification for his decision), just without his normal adeptness. The Birmingham Six's alibi was "we couldn't have done the bombing because we were going to an IRA funeral", which probably meant Denning had already decided they were guilty of ''something'' and was trying to find a way to make that law.
* Child molestation accusations, also a case of AppealToFear. It's horrible to have an active child molester roaming around, so [[ConvictedByPublicOpinion people accused of child molestation are often never trusted again by society, whether there's any proof of it or not]]. Taking note of this trope in this instance, though, can cause the opposite problem: assuming an accused child molester is innocent when they're not, because [[AbominationAccusationAttack it'd be horrible to accuse someone wrongly of child molestation]]. The issue is a very polarizing instance of this appeal, which is why there was (and continues to be) so much drama over Music/MichaelJackson and Creator/WoodyAllen.
* An argument for the existence of god (any god, logical fallacies aren't picky) is how much life would suck if there was no god (e.g. we would all become {{straw nihilist}}s). Conversely, some atheists claim exactly the opposite, that life would suck if gods did exist (e.g. all of existence would be a totalitarian {{Dystopia}}). Bear in mind though, that either side isn't necessarily making this fallacy, and may just try to say their opinion. However, it can be hard to tell. The religious argument misses that whether or not god ''exists'' is a totally different question than whether or not it would be "good" to ''believe'' in god. From the conviction that it ''is'' good to believe -- and it is ''not'' good not to believe [[note]]Especially when atheism and (straw) nihilism are falsely claimed to be the same or whenever atheism is falsely claimed to lead to immorality[[/note]] - with this trope they fallaciously conclude god exists (whether or not this happens to be the case).[[note]]Religious people who believe in something which cannot be proven to be true as a value ''as such'' consider this belief as a (the?) reason that life doesn't suck. However, since this belief nowadays mostly is in no way based on knowledge -- and isn't on ''purpose'' -- the existence of a god doesn't ''cause'' their (or anybodies) beliefs at all. (Which had to be the case for the religious argument to be true.) They would believe in god just the same if god didn't exist and would not notice a difference since they just do not know if god exists and admit this to be the case. (Religious beliefs based on the claim that god's existence is proven and thus is knowledge are possible too, but atheists of course disagree.)[[/note]] The atheist opposite claim doesn't have to be well argued but does make this distinction.
* Likewise, evolution is often claimed by creationists to have all sorts of horrible consequences if true, quickly summed up as "If we're descended from monkeys, then we will act like monkeys," and of course the [[HitlerAteSugar eugenics argument]]. Besides most of these negative consequences being false or irrelevant (if humans are apes, then to act "like an ape" does not preclude acting like a human), the desirability of common ancestry has nothing to do with its truth value.
* {{Deconstruction}} can end up like this if done in a sloppy manner.
* Some Holocaust deniers will argue that the Holocaust being true provides a justification for the Israeli treatment of Palestinians and that it lends credence to American neoconservatives citing UsefulNotes/WorldWarII as a model for a "just war". Of course, neither of these things affect the reality of the Holocaust (they would also require dubious logic).
!!! Looks like this fallacy but isn't
* Long-term decision making. You are planning on something that cannot be proven to exist, and therefore, it is impossible for logic to come to an absolutely true conclusion about it and you can only foresee a possible consequence. Consequential arguments are generally not fallacious if used in decision-making with something that cannot be objectively provable -- i.e., (desirable/undesirable, or morally right/morally wrong, not is it true). There is no "real" decisive position, such as a tax rate or drug policy. This is why arguments from consequences are (sometimes) accepted as valid in law and ethics (e.g. {{utilitarianism}}). The main difference is that consequentialist theories (like, but not limited to, utilitarianism) see consequences as a valid moral reason to actually ''carry out'' a certain ''action'' or not instead of a reason for a ''claim being true or false''. This particularly includes questions about whether or not a particular course of action is desirable. Almost inevitably, the truth or falsity of the statement "Doing X is desirable" is subjective, and almost as inevitably, the subjective truth or falsity depends in whole or in part on X's consequences.
* Any case where the argument is based on avoiding consequences rather than any particular truth value. For example, "You should not jump into an active volcano, because if you do so you will die horribly" is not an appeal to consequence, because the fact that you will die horribly is not presented as making the statement true.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Formatting to fix picture.
Changed line(s) 6,7 (click to see context) from:
!!'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences Appeal to Consequences]]''':
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
: For contrast, the following is ''not'' Appeal To Consequences:
-->Human industry is producing massive amounts of CO[[subscript:2]].
-->CO[[subscript:2]] causes climate change regardless of source.
-->Even minor alterations to the Earth's climate would be catastrophic for humanity.
-->Q.E.D.: If humans wish to destroy themselves, humans should maintain or increase their current carbon emissions.
:: A contingent statement is established based on absolute facts forming a chain of cause and effect.
-->Human industry is producing massive amounts of CO[[subscript:2]].
-->CO[[subscript:2]] causes climate change regardless of source.
-->Even minor alterations to the Earth's climate would be catastrophic for humanity.
-->Q.E.D.: If humans wish to destroy themselves, humans should maintain or increase their current carbon emissions.
:: A contingent statement is established based on absolute facts forming a chain of cause and effect.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[quoteright:350:https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/appeal_to_consequences.JPG]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 27 (click to see context) from:
** Likewise, evolution is often claimed by creationists to have all sorts of horrible consequences if true, quickly summed up as "If we're descended from monkeys, then we will act like monkeys," and of course the [[HitlerAteSugar eugenics argument]]. Besides most of these negative consequences being false or irrelevant (if humans are apes, then to act "like an ape" does not preclude acting like a human), the desirability of common ancestry has nothing to do with its truth value.
to:
Changed line(s) 29,30 (click to see context) from:
* Some Holocaust deniers will argue that the Holocaust being true provides a justification for the Israeli treatment of Palestinians and that it lends credence to American neoconservatives citing UsefulNotes/WorldWarII as a model for a "just war". Of course, neither of these things affect the reality of the Holocaust.
to:
* Some Holocaust deniers will argue that the Holocaust being true provides a justification for the Israeli treatment of Palestinians and that it lends credence to American neoconservatives citing UsefulNotes/WorldWarII as a model for a "just war". Of course, neither of these things affect the reality of the Holocaust.
Holocaust (they would also require dubious logic).
Changed line(s) 32,33 (click to see context) from:
* Long-term decision making. You are planning on something that cannot be proven to exist, and therefore, it is impossible for logic to come to an absolutely true conclusion about it and you can only foresee a possible consequence. Consequential arguments are generally not fallacious if used in decision-making with something that cannot be objectively provable -- i.e., (desirable/undesirable, or morally right/morally wrong, not is it true). There is no "real" decisive position, such as a tax rate or drug policy. This is why arguments from consequences are (sometimes) accepted as valid in law and ethics (e.g. {{utilitarianism}}). The main difference is that consequentialist theories (like, but not limited to, utilitarism) see consequences as a valid moral reason to actually ''carry out'' a certain ''action'' or not instead of a reason for a ''claim being true or false''.
** This particularly includes questions about whether or not a particular course of action is desirable. Almost inevitably, the truth or falsity of the statement "Doing X is desirable" is subjective, and almost as inevitably, the subjective truth or falsity depends in whole or in part on X's consequences.
** This particularly includes questions about whether or not a particular course of action is desirable. Almost inevitably, the truth or falsity of the statement "Doing X is desirable" is subjective, and almost as inevitably, the subjective truth or falsity depends in whole or in part on X's consequences.
to:
* Long-term decision making. You are planning on something that cannot be proven to exist, and therefore, it is impossible for logic to come to an absolutely true conclusion about it and you can only foresee a possible consequence. Consequential arguments are generally not fallacious if used in decision-making with something that cannot be objectively provable -- i.e., (desirable/undesirable, or morally right/morally wrong, not is it true). There is no "real" decisive position, such as a tax rate or drug policy. This is why arguments from consequences are (sometimes) accepted as valid in law and ethics (e.g. {{utilitarianism}}). The main difference is that consequentialist theories (like, but not limited to, utilitarism) utilitarianism) see consequences as a valid moral reason to actually ''carry out'' a certain ''action'' or not instead of a reason for a ''claim being true or false''.
**false''. This particularly includes questions about whether or not a particular course of action is desirable. Almost inevitably, the truth or falsity of the statement "Doing X is desirable" is subjective, and almost as inevitably, the subjective truth or falsity depends in whole or in part on X's consequences.
**
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
->'''"You see the little rift? ‘Believe this, not because it’s true, but for some other reason.’ That’s the game[.]"
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 1 (click to see context) :
!!'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences Appeal to Consequences]]''':
Added DiffLines:
!!'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences Appeal to Consequences]]''':
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
->'''"You see the little rift? ‘Believe this, not because it’s true, but for some other reason.’ That’s the game[.]"
-->--'''[[Literature/TheScrewtapeLetters Screwtape]]''', Letter 23
-->--'''[[Literature/TheScrewtapeLetters Screwtape]]''', Letter 23
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
They don't necessarily rest on an anthropomorphic god. Also, it's best not to declare what can or cannot be proven true here.
Changed line(s) 22 (click to see context) from:
* An argument for the existence of god (any god, logical fallacies aren't picky) is how much life would suck if there was no god (e.g. we would all become {{Straw Nihilist}}s). Conversely, some atheists claim exactly the opposite, that life would suck if gods did exist (e.g. all of existence would be a totalitarian {{Dystopia}}). Bear in mind though, that either side isn't necessarily making this fallacy, and may just try to say their opinion [[note]]based on the assumption that the concept of "god" -- believed to be true or not -- would consist of an at least quite human (often male) shaped figure, which would still not be necessarily true in case god exists)[[/note]]. However, it can be hard to tell. The religious argument misses that whether or not god ''exists'' is a totally different question than whether or not it would be "good" to ''believe'' in god. From the conviction that it ''is'' good to believe -- and it is ''not'' good not to believe [[note]]Especially when Atheism and (straw) Nihilism is falsely claimed to be the same or whenever Atheism is falsely claimed to lead to immorality[[/note]] - with this trope they fallaciously conclude god exists (whether or not this happens to be the case). [[note]]Religious people who believe in something which can not be proven to be true as a value ''as such'' consider this belief as a (the?) reason that life doesn't suck. However, since this belief nowadays mostly is in no way based on knowledge -- and isn't on ''purpose'' -- the existence of a god doesn't ''cause'' their (or anybodies) beliefs at all. (Which had to be the case for the religious argument to be true.) They would believe in god just the same if god didn't exist and would not notice a difference since they just do not know if god exists and admit this to be the case. (Religious beliefs based on the claim that god's existence is proven and thus is knowledge are possible too, but these claims never turned out to be provable.)[[/note]] The atheist opposite claim doesn't have to be well argued but does make this distinction.
to:
* An argument for the existence of god (any god, logical fallacies aren't picky) is how much life would suck if there was no god (e.g. we would all become {{Straw Nihilist}}s).{{straw nihilist}}s). Conversely, some atheists claim exactly the opposite, that life would suck if gods did exist (e.g. all of existence would be a totalitarian {{Dystopia}}). Bear in mind though, that either side isn't necessarily making this fallacy, and may just try to say their opinion [[note]]based on the assumption that the concept of "god" -- believed to be true or not -- would consist of an at least quite human (often male) shaped figure, which would still not be necessarily true in case god exists)[[/note]].opinion. However, it can be hard to tell. The religious argument misses that whether or not god ''exists'' is a totally different question than whether or not it would be "good" to ''believe'' in god. From the conviction that it ''is'' good to believe -- and it is ''not'' good not to believe [[note]]Especially when Atheism atheism and (straw) Nihilism is nihilism are falsely claimed to be the same or whenever Atheism atheism is falsely claimed to lead to immorality[[/note]] - with this trope they fallaciously conclude god exists (whether or not this happens to be the case). case).[[note]]Religious people who believe in something which can not cannot be proven to be true as a value ''as such'' consider this belief as a (the?) reason that life doesn't suck. However, since this belief nowadays mostly is in no way based on knowledge -- and isn't on ''purpose'' -- the existence of a god doesn't ''cause'' their (or anybodies) beliefs at all. (Which had to be the case for the religious argument to be true.) They would believe in god just the same if god didn't exist and would not notice a difference since they just do not know if god exists and admit this to be the case. (Religious beliefs based on the claim that god's existence is proven and thus is knowledge are possible too, but these claims never turned out to be provable.atheists of course disagree.)[[/note]] The atheist opposite claim doesn't have to be well argued but does make this distinction.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 21,22 (click to see context) from:
* Child molestation accusations, also a case of AppealToFear. It's horrible to have an active child molester roaming around, so [[ConvictedByPublicOpinion people accused of child molestation are often never trusted again by society, whether there's any proof of it or not]]. Taking note of this trope in this instance, though, can cause the opposite problem: assuming an accused child molester is innocent when they're not, because it'd be horrible to accuse someone wrongly of child molestation. The issue is a very polarizing instance of this appeal, which is why there was (and continues to be) so much drama over Music/MichaelJackson and Creator/WoodyAllen.
* An argument for the existence of god (any god, logical fallacies aren't picky) is how much life would suck if there was no god (e.g. we would all become {{Straw Nihilist}}s). Conversely, some atheists claim exactly the opposite, that life would suck if gods did exist (e.g. all of existence would be a totalitarian {{Dystopia}}). Bear in mind though, that either side isn't necessarily making this fallacy, and may just try to say their opinion [[note]]based on the assumption that the concept of "god" - believed to be true or not - would consist of an at least quite human (often male) shaped figure, which would still not be necessarily true in case god exists)[[/note]]. However, it can be hard to tell. The religious argument misses that whether or not god ''exists'' is a totally different question than whether or not it would be "good" to ''believe'' in god. From the conviction that it ''is'' good to believe - and it is ''not'' good not to believe [[note]]Especially when Atheism and (straw) Nihilism is falsely claimed to be the same or whenever Atheism is falsely claimed to lead to immorality[[/note]] - with this trope they fallaciously conclude god exists (whether or not this happens to be the case). [[note]]Religious people who see believe in something which can not be proven to be true as a value ''as such'' consider this belief as a (the?) reason that life doesn't suck. However, since this believe nowadays mostly is in no way based on knowledge - and isn't on ''purpose'' - the existence of a god doesn't ''cause'' their (or anybodies) beliefes at all. (Which had to be the case for the religious argument was true.) They would believe in god just the same if god didn't exist and would not notice a difference since they just do not know if god exists and admit this to be the case. (Religious beliefs based on the claim that god's existence is proven and thus is knowledge are possible too but this claims never turned out to be provable though.) [[/note]] The atheist opposite claim doesn't have to be well argued but does make this distinction.
* An argument for the existence of god (any god, logical fallacies aren't picky) is how much life would suck if there was no god (e.g. we would all become {{Straw Nihilist}}s). Conversely, some atheists claim exactly the opposite, that life would suck if gods did exist (e.g. all of existence would be a totalitarian {{Dystopia}}). Bear in mind though, that either side isn't necessarily making this fallacy, and may just try to say their opinion [[note]]based on the assumption that the concept of "god" - believed to be true or not - would consist of an at least quite human (often male) shaped figure, which would still not be necessarily true in case god exists)[[/note]]. However, it can be hard to tell. The religious argument misses that whether or not god ''exists'' is a totally different question than whether or not it would be "good" to ''believe'' in god. From the conviction that it ''is'' good to believe - and it is ''not'' good not to believe [[note]]Especially when Atheism and (straw) Nihilism is falsely claimed to be the same or whenever Atheism is falsely claimed to lead to immorality[[/note]] - with this trope they fallaciously conclude god exists (whether or not this happens to be the case). [[note]]Religious people who see believe in something which can not be proven to be true as a value ''as such'' consider this belief as a (the?) reason that life doesn't suck. However, since this believe nowadays mostly is in no way based on knowledge - and isn't on ''purpose'' - the existence of a god doesn't ''cause'' their (or anybodies) beliefes at all. (Which had to be the case for the religious argument was true.) They would believe in god just the same if god didn't exist and would not notice a difference since they just do not know if god exists and admit this to be the case. (Religious beliefs based on the claim that god's existence is proven and thus is knowledge are possible too but this claims never turned out to be provable though.) [[/note]] The atheist opposite claim doesn't have to be well argued but does make this distinction.
to:
* Child molestation accusations, also a case of AppealToFear. It's horrible to have an active child molester roaming around, so [[ConvictedByPublicOpinion people accused of child molestation are often never trusted again by society, whether there's any proof of it or not]]. Taking note of this trope in this instance, though, can cause the opposite problem: assuming an accused child molester is innocent when they're not, because [[AbominationAccusationAttack it'd be horrible to accuse someone wrongly of child molestation.molestation]]. The issue is a very polarizing instance of this appeal, which is why there was (and continues to be) so much drama over Music/MichaelJackson and Creator/WoodyAllen.
* An argument for the existence of god (any god, logical fallacies aren't picky) is how much life would suck if there was no god (e.g. we would all become {{Straw Nihilist}}s). Conversely, some atheists claim exactly the opposite, that life would suck if gods did exist (e.g. all of existence would be a totalitarian {{Dystopia}}). Bear in mind though, that either side isn't necessarily making this fallacy, and may just try to say their opinion [[note]]based on the assumption that the concept of "god"- -- believed to be true or not - -- would consist of an at least quite human (often male) shaped figure, which would still not be necessarily true in case god exists)[[/note]]. However, it can be hard to tell. The religious argument misses that whether or not god ''exists'' is a totally different question than whether or not it would be "good" to ''believe'' in god. From the conviction that it ''is'' good to believe - -- and it is ''not'' good not to believe [[note]]Especially when Atheism and (straw) Nihilism is falsely claimed to be the same or whenever Atheism is falsely claimed to lead to immorality[[/note]] - with this trope they fallaciously conclude god exists (whether or not this happens to be the case). [[note]]Religious people who see believe in something which can not be proven to be true as a value ''as such'' consider this belief as a (the?) reason that life doesn't suck. However, since this believe belief nowadays mostly is in no way based on knowledge - -- and isn't on ''purpose'' - -- the existence of a god doesn't ''cause'' their (or anybodies) beliefes beliefs at all. (Which had to be the case for the religious argument was to be true.) They would believe in god just the same if god didn't exist and would not notice a difference since they just do not know if god exists and admit this to be the case. (Religious beliefs based on the claim that god's existence is proven and thus is knowledge are possible too too, but this these claims never turned out to be provable though.) [[/note]] provable.)[[/note]] The atheist opposite claim doesn't have to be well argued but does make this distinction.
* An argument for the existence of god (any god, logical fallacies aren't picky) is how much life would suck if there was no god (e.g. we would all become {{Straw Nihilist}}s). Conversely, some atheists claim exactly the opposite, that life would suck if gods did exist (e.g. all of existence would be a totalitarian {{Dystopia}}). Bear in mind though, that either side isn't necessarily making this fallacy, and may just try to say their opinion [[note]]based on the assumption that the concept of "god"
Changed line(s) 28 (click to see context) from:
* Long-term decision making. You are planning on something that cannot be proven to exist, and therefore, it is impossible for logic to come to an absolutely true conclusion about it and you can only foresee a possible consequence. Consequential arguments are generally not fallacious if used in decision making with something that cannot be objectively provable - i.e., (desirable/undesirable, or morally right/morally wrong, not is it true). There is no "real" decisive position, such as a tax rate or drug policy. This is why arguments from consequences are (sometimes) accepted as valid in law and ethics (e.g. {{utilitarianism}}). The main difference is that consequentialist theories (like, but not limited to, utilitarism) see consequences as a valid moral reason to actually ''carry out'' a certain ''action'' or not instead of a reason for a ''claim being true or false''.
to:
* Long-term decision making. You are planning on something that cannot be proven to exist, and therefore, it is impossible for logic to come to an absolutely true conclusion about it and you can only foresee a possible consequence. Consequential arguments are generally not fallacious if used in decision making decision-making with something that cannot be objectively provable - -- i.e., (desirable/undesirable, or morally right/morally wrong, not is it true). There is no "real" decisive position, such as a tax rate or drug policy. This is why arguments from consequences are (sometimes) accepted as valid in law and ethics (e.g. {{utilitarianism}}). The main difference is that consequentialist theories (like, but not limited to, utilitarism) see consequences as a valid moral reason to actually ''carry out'' a certain ''action'' or not instead of a reason for a ''claim being true or false''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 29 (click to see context) from:
** This particularly includes questions about whether or not a particular course of action is desirable. Almost inevitably, the truth or falsity of the statement "Doing X is desirable" is subjective, and almost as inevitably, the subjective truth or falsity depends in whole or in part on X's consequences.
to:
** This particularly includes questions about whether or not a particular course of action is desirable. Almost inevitably, the truth or falsity of the statement "Doing X is desirable" is subjective, and almost as inevitably, the subjective truth or falsity depends in whole or in part on X's consequences.consequences.
* Any case where the argument is based on avoiding consequences rather than any particular truth value. For example, "You should not jump into an active volcano, because if you do so you will die horribly" is not an appeal to consequence, because the fact that you will die horribly is not presented as making the statement true.
* Any case where the argument is based on avoiding consequences rather than any particular truth value. For example, "You should not jump into an active volcano, because if you do so you will die horribly" is not an appeal to consequence, because the fact that you will die horribly is not presented as making the statement true.
