Question

...

Question about appeal to force fallacy

1. Does an argument contain an appeal to force fallacy if it is about accepting/rejecting an action rather than imposing a belief. For example if the argument goes along the line of  'if you do not do action x, you will suffer punishment y. Therefore you should not do action X'

2. What is the difference between a threat and an argument?

asked on Monday, Apr 06, 2020 05:16:28 PM by

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
1

In case 1) this is the non-fallacious use in my opinion. This is because rather than threatening someone with physical punishment, for example, for accepting/not accepting a belief, it is a warning of the consequences of not taking an action. It is still  ad baculum , but not deceptive.

Non-fallacious form (substitute x for, say, 'go to bed on time', and y for 'losing your smartphone privileges')

  • if you do not do x, you will suffer y
  • you do not want to suffer y
  • ergo, you should do x

The fallacious form would require forcing you to accept a belief (substitute x for, say, 'Jesus Christ is Lord', and y for 'death').

  • if you do not believe x, you will suffer y
  • you do not want to suffer y
  • therefore you must accept x as true

2) An argument is a series of statements intended to defend a proposition, or point. A threat is simply a warning of the use of force or other undesirable consequences (coercion). A valid argument proves its point without relying on force. If I am forced to accept, for example, Jesus Christ is Lord on pain of death, it does not  prove  that he is in fact, Lord. All it does is prove that I was coerced. 

Hope that helped.

answered on Monday, Apr 06, 2020 06:21:09 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
account no longer exists writes:

Thanks for your answer. Just wondering, in your first example, if the punishment for y was to be substituted with a physical punishment, would this still be considered non-fallacious? E.g. if you do not go to bed on time (x), you will be spanked (punishment y)

 

And in regards to threats, would "if you do not do x, you will suffer punishment y", be considered a threat then?

posted on Tuesday, Apr 07, 2020 03:41:48 PM
...
1
Bryan writes:
[To Bob Jones]

The punishment is irrelevant, it's a fallacy if a threat is substituted instead of a reason. 

"Why should I go to bed at 6pm when Jennifer goes to bed at 10pm?"

A non fallacious reply would explain why e.g. 

"Because Jennifer is 12 and doesn't need as much sleep as a 6 year old"

Whereas a fallacious response doesn't address the question e.g. 

"Because if you don't then your hair and teeth will fall out during the night"

So yes, physical punishment would still be fallacious. 

"if you do not do x, you will suffer punishment y" is a threat, but it is just a declaration. If it was a response to why must I do x it would be a fallacy, but a declaration of a threat on it's own isn't a fallacy. That doesn't make it necessarily okay, something isn't problematic just because it's fallacious. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Wednesday, Apr 08, 2020 06:41:15 PM
...
DrBill
0

 'if you do not do action x, you will suffer punishment y. Therefore you should not do action X'

I had to restate the the central idea of the question to answer it. 

'if you do not do action x, you will suffer punishment y. Therefore you should do action X'

...though this works as well

 'if you do action x, you will suffer punishment y. Therefore you should not do action X'

Either reframing makes it appear as a lawmaker's output, and is not a topic for fallacies' analysis on its surface.

Laws on speeding, parking, seatbelt wearing, spitting on the subway, nudity at the beach all might be discussed to find out what rational basis underlies the law, but by the time it becomes eg USC 2590:1a-3c, rationality is not part of the confrontation between an officer and a respondent.

The basis for laws is presumably that it makes sense to a sufficiency of the populace, but for those who do not agree with the basis, it is simply coercive, not an appeal to force, though it may in general expect an overall to appeal to authority.

So imo, it's first an appeal to popularity (everyone else does it), then authority (the lawmaker says to do it), but in the final analysis is a threat.

Much of the time, one must enjoy the hospitality of the state before gaining the privilege to contest laws. Governments do not tolerate arguments, unless/until they perceive credible threats.

answered on Tuesday, Apr 07, 2020 03:33:37 PM by DrBill

DrBill Suggested These Categories

Comments