Appeal to Fear (Argumentum ad Baculum)
A logical fallacy that uses the threat of harm, whether physical or psychological, to force acceptance of a conclusion rather than providing relevant evidence.
THE IDEA
Appeal to Fear (Argumentum ad Baculum)
This fallacy occurs when someone uses a threat of negative consequences to persuade someone to accept a conclusion, rather than offering logical reasoning or relevant evidence. The threat may be explicit or implicit, and it often exploits a power imbalance.
Example
A graduate school student supervisor demands sexual favors from a graduate student over whom he has control in return for continuation in a PhD program (Damer, 2009, p. 107). The demand can be examined as an implicit argument: does the threatened consequence justify the requested action? The “conclusion” of the argument is presumably something like, “You should have sex with me” or “We should have sex.” We have to ask, then, what is the point of the dialogue? If the point of the dialogue was something like the playful planning of a sexual encounter between people in a reciprocal relationship of attraction and affection in which there have been previous sexual encounters, then we don’t have good reason to think of the “argument” as fallacious. However, given the language used to describe the situation, for example, the supervisor is said to “demand” sexual favors, and given that it is occurring in the context of power inequality, the “should” does not mean something like “as we’re mutually attracted to each other and amorous”; rather, the supervisor has “shifted” from that meaning to “as you surely want to continue in the program.” As such, and given the mores/ethics surrounding appropriate exchanges regarding sex, that is, sex should not be coerced, the reasons given are irrelevant to the context of the discussion of whether to have sex. Thus, the supervisor has argued fallaciously in his appeal to the student’s fear of losing her position in the program.
When to use it
In a negotiation, distinguishing a statement of what a party will do from evidence that its claims are true or its proposed terms are fair.
Politicians using fear of economic collapse to push through policies without evidence.
A boss uses a threat of dismissal as supposed proof that an employee’s objection is wrong, rather than addressing the objection.
A parent warning a child about the dangers of playing in the street (legitimate warning, not necessarily fallacious).
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
PhD supervisor coercion
A graduate school student supervisor demands sexual favors from a graduate student over whom he has control in return for continuation in a PhD program. This is a fallacious appeal to fear because the threat of losing position is used to coerce agreement, irrelevant to the merits of the sexual encounter.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Can you identify a situation where someone used a threat to persuade you? How could you respond to expose the fallacy?
In what contexts is an appeal to fear considered legitimate (e.g., public health warnings) versus fallacious?
Why is it important to distinguish between relevant warnings and coercive threats in argumentation?
References
- Attacking Faulty Reasoning — T. Edward Damer (2009)
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Bad Arguments 100 of the Most Important Fallacies in Western Philosophy (Steven Barbone, Michael Bruce)