Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum)
A logical fallacy where a threat or promise of harmful consequences is used to support a conclusion, without relevance to the argument's merits. The fallacy depends on context: if the discussion is about the merits, threats are irrelevant; if it is about self-interest, it may not be fallacious.
THE IDEA
Example 1
In regard to his support of a particular bill, a lobbyist reminds a representative that he (the lobbyist) can influence so many thousands of voters in the representative’s constituency, or so many potential contributors to campaign funds.
(Walton [1992], 144)
Copi comments on this example, writing, “Logically [the lobbyist’s] considerations have nothing to do with the merit of the legislation that the lobbyist is attempting to influence. But they may be, unfortunately, very persuasive” (see Walton [1992], 144–145). Copi rightly points out the issue of relevance. Whether the bill is any good, whether it ought to be adopted, is surely a matter of the bill’s quality. Thus, if we take the conclusion of the argument to be, “You should adopt this bill” in the sense of, “it is worthy legislation,” then clearly the influence of the lobbyist is irrelevant and the argument fallacious. One context of considering whether a bill should be adopted focuses on the bill’s worth. If this is the context in which the discussion is occurring, then when the lobbyist implies that bad things will happen if the representative does not support the bill, he is illicitly shifting from the sense of “should” that pertains to that context to the context of a “should” that pertains to the representative keeping his position. As Walton writes:
Whether a fallacy has been committed depends on what the representative and the lobbyist are trying to do. If they are discussing the merits of the legislation, then offers or threats to influence voters or funding are beside the point and make no contribution to the discussion. In that case the lobbyist’s “reminder” could be dismissed as a fallacious move on the grounds of its irrelevance to the issue of the discussion.
(Walton [1992], 144–145)
However, as Walton further emphasizes, it’s possible that the conversation is not in the context of discussing the worth of the bill but rather is in the context of negotiating more generally whether the representative is going to support it. In such a context, the lobbyist’s purpose is to persuade the representative that it is in his best interest to support the bill; the issue isn’t the quality of the content of the bill. In such a context, we could read the lobbyist’s conclusion, “You should support the bill” in the sense of, “if you know what’s good for you.” On this reading, there is no illicit shift, no equivocation on the meaning of “should.” And, thus, the argument is not fallacious.
When to use it
A manager threatens to fire an employee unless they agree with a project plan, rather than persuading based on the plan's merits.
A politician warns that voting against a bill will result in loss of campaign funding from powerful donors.
In a debate, someone says 'You should accept my argument because if you don't, I will make sure you lose your job.' This shifts the focus from evidence to threat.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Lobbyist and Representative
A lobbyist reminds a representative that he can influence thousands of voters and campaign contributors in the representative’s district. The implied threat is that if the representative does not support the bill, the lobbyist will use his influence to harm the representative’s re-election chances. In a discussion about the merits of the bill, such a threat is irrelevant and constitutes the appeal to force fallacy.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
How can you distinguish between a legitimate appeal to consequences and a fallacious appeal to force?
In what contexts might an argument using threats be considered valid rather than fallacious?
Why is the relevance of the threat to the conclusion a key factor in determining whether the argument is fallacious?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Bad Arguments 100 of the Most Important Fallacies in Western Philosophy (Steven Barbone, Michael Bruce)