If I punch you then you deserved it.

I had a conversation like this...

If an act of violence occurs because of some problem then this is proof that the violence was justified, because perpetrators of the violence must have tried every channel before violence. Violence was the only option.

To me this seems like saying violence justifies violence. Or A therefore A. Circular reasoning.

I just realized this may be affirming the consequence.

If you deserve it then I will punch you.
I punched you therefore you deserved it.

" I punched you therefore you deserved it."


The problem with this statement is that it lends itself to various possible assumptions of contained logical fallacy, depending on specific particulars not revealed in the limited context.

1. (Your initial take) "If an act of violence occurs because of some problem then this is proof that the violence was justified, because perpetrators of the violence must have tried every channel before violence. Violence was the only option."

This is an assumption, and may not be the case at all. The perpetrators of violence may NOT have exhausted 'every channel' and the 'rush' to punching someone may be premature. Or, even if 'every channel' has been exhausted, the remedy of punching may be extreme for the situation involved. In either case, this speaks to voicing an OPINION, and contains no logical fallacy.

2. (Your 2nd take) " If you deserve it then I will punch you.
I punched you therefore you deserved it." If the antecedent can be implied, then I agree, it is likely 'affirming the consequence.' A circular, self-fulfilling violation of formal logic. However, it is not a given the antecedent is implied.

3. (Bare Bones) "I punched you therefore you deserved it." Taking the statement without further adornment we have possibilities ranging from a non sequitur to an opinion, depending on the mindset of the author. I do not think it is possible to go further without additional context.

I'm reading this as more of an Ad Hoc rescue.

Ad Hoc Rescue
ad hoc

(also known as: making stuff up, MSU fallacy)

Description: Very often we desperately want to be right and hold on to certain beliefs, despite any evidence presented to the contrary. As a result, we begin to make up excuses as to why our belief could still be true, and is still true, despite the fact that we have no real evidence for what we are making up.

Logical Form:

Claim X is true because of evidence Y.
Evidence Y is demonstrated not to be acceptable evidence.
Therefore, it must be guess Z then, even though there is no evidence for guess Z.

I punched Harry because he provoked me.
But he was just asking questions there was no reason for it.
Well, then, he must have deserved it otherwise I wouldn't have punched him

I'll agree with you that it's circular reasoning. Begging the question. Whatever.

P1. Violence is an acceptable response to a problem if all other avenues have not succeeded.
P2. You did something problematic for me.
P3. I have tried other avenues, and have not succeeded.
C. Therefore, I can punch you.

This is sound, but not valid. The premises assume a lot. Many people disagree with P1. P2 is a matter of perception of the person on the receiving end. As many other people have said, it is often unlikely that P3 is true. So, for loads of reasons, the argument falls apart.

In the other wording:

If you deserve it I will punch you.
I punched you.
Therefore, you deserved to be punched.

I think this argument is affirming the consequent.

Thank you for your answer