History Main / AppealToConsequences

* 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 believes 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.

* 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 see consequences as a valid moral reason to actually ''carry out'' a certain ''action'' or not instead of a ''claim being true or false''.

* 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 believes 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.

* 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 accepted as valid in law and ethics (e.g. {{utilitarianism}}).

* 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 be making an observation. However, it can be hard to tell.

!!'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences Appeal To Consequences]]''':

* Child molestation accusations, also a case of AppealToFear. It's horrible to have an active child molester roaming around, so 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.

* {{Deconstruction}} can end up like this if done in a sloppy manner.

* 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 be making an observation.
** 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.

* Child molestation accusations, also a case of AppealToFear. It's horrible to have an active child molester roaming around, so 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.

* Lord Denning actually used this as a reason to quash the Birmingham Six's appeal against their conviction. 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.

* Long-term decision making. You are planning on something that does not exist yet, 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 accepted as valid in law and ethics (e.g. {{utilitarianism}}).

* Child molestation accusations, also a case of AppealToFear. It's horrible to have an active child molester roaming around, so 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 so much drama over MichaelJackson.

* Long-term decision making. There are no objective real-world facts, and if you are planning on something that does not exist yet, then it is impossible 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 isn't 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 accepted as valid in ethics (e.g. {{utilitarianism}}).

* Long-term decision making. There are no objective real-world facts, and you can only form a potential, but not true, conclusion.
** 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.

** 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." 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.

* When the question isn't about the truth or falsity of a statement, but is instead about analyzing the possible consequences of an action, plan or event (as in {{deconstruction}} arguments). In this case, the consequences, which are not happening yet, can neither be absolutely true nor absolutely false.

* When the question isn't about the truth or falsity of a statement, but is instead about analyzing the possible consequences of an action, plan or event (as in {{deconstruction}} arguments). In this case, the consequences, which are not happening yet, can neither be absolutely true nor absolutely false.

* 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}}). ChristopherHitchens was noteworthy for often being more adamant about how horrible it would be if the Christian god existed, than he was about actually disproving the Christian god. Bear in mind though, that either side isn't necessarily making this fallacy, and may just be making an observation.

* When the question isn't about the truth or falsity of a statement, but is instead about analyzing the possible consequences of an action or plan. In this case, the consequences, which are not happening yet, can neither be absolutely true nor absolutely false.

* When the question isn't about the truth or falsity of a statement, but is instead about whether or not to follow a particular course of action. Analysing the consequences of an action is important in decision-making logic and is not the same a fallacious appeal to consequences.

* 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. Conversely, some atheists claim exactly the opposite, that life would suck if gods did exist. ChristopherHitchens was noteworthy for often being more adamant about how horrible it would be if the Christian god existed, than he was about actually disproving the Christian god. Bear in mind though, that either side isn't necessarily making this fallacy, and may just be making an observation.

* When the question isn't about the truth or falsity of a statement, but is instead about whether or not to follow a particular course of action.

** 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." 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 it's truth value.

* Creationists like this one. The fact that Hitler and other eugenicists thought "survival of the fittest" was [[AppealToNature righteous to enforce]] has no bearing on the scientific validity of evolutionary theory.

* Child molestation accusations, also a case of AppealToFear. It's horrible to have an active child molester roaming around, so people accused of child molest are often never trusted again by society, whether there's any proof 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 molest. The issue is a very polarizing instance of this appeal, which is why there was so much drama over MichaelJackson.

* Child molestation accusations. It's horrible to have an active child molester roaming around, so people accused of child molest are often never trusted again by society, whether there's any proof 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 molest. The issue is a very polarizing instance of this appeal, which is why there was so much drama over MichaelJackson.

* Child molestation accusations. It's horrible to have an active child molester roaming around, so people accused of child molest are often never trusted again by society, whether there's any proof 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 molest. This is why there was so much drama over MichaelJackson.

* Creationists like this one. The fact that Hitler's and other eugenicists thought "survival of the fittest" was [[AppealToNature righteous to enforce]] has no bearing on the scientific validity of evolutionary theory.
* Lord Denning actually used this as a reason to quash the Birmingham Six's appeal against their conviction. 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.

* Creationists like this one. In fact, even if Hitler's policies had been informed by a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species book]] that was actually banned under his rule, and the systematic slaughter of 14 million people could in any way be considered to be ''natural'' selection, this would have no bearing on the scientific validity of evolutionary theory.

-->Q.E.D.: Global warming is both occurring ''and' caused by humans.

* When the question isn't about the truth or falsity of a statement, but is instead about whether or not to follow a particular course of action.
-->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.
-->Q.E.D: businesses should cut down on carbon emissions.