Appeal to Consequences
The appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy where the truth of a proposition is judged based on the positive or negative consequences of believing it, rather than on evidence.
THE IDEA
5.6 APPEAL TO CONSEQUENCES
The appeal to consequences (also known as argumentum ad consequentiam, appeal to consequences of a belief, argument from consequences) is a causal fallacy in which the truth of a proposition is argued to depend on the desirability or undesirability of its consequences. In other words, one commits this fallacy by claiming that a statement must be true because good things would follow from it being true, or false because bad things would follow. The error lies in assuming a relationship between the truth value of a claim and the feelings or outcomes associated with it.
Logical Form:
If A is true, then B will happen. B is desirable (or undesirable). Therefore, A is true (or false).
This formulation covers both positive and negative variants:
- Positive form: Concluding that a claim is true because the consequences of its being true are good or comforting.
- Negative form: Concluding that a claim is false because the consequences of its being true are bad or disturbing.
Examples:
- Hal: “I know that God does not exist.” Susan: “What evidence do you have to support this claim?” Hal: “Well, just look at all of the harm that has been done in the name of God!”
Here Hal does not provide logical premises; he points to the negative consequences of religious belief. The harm done in God’s name says nothing about whether God exists.
-
“If God did not exist, then life would be meaningless. But life is not meaningless. Therefore, God exists.” As written, this is a formally valid conditional argument. Its disputed premise is that life would be meaningless without God. It becomes an appeal to consequences if the reason offered for accepting God’s existence is simply that a meaningless life would be undesirable.
-
“If God exists, then we will be judged. But we don’t want to be judged. Therefore, God does not exist.” The negative form rejects a proposition because its implications are unpleasant.
-
“Evolutionary theory is correct for many reasons. The strongest evidence for evolution lies in the fact that people who accept this theory are more civilized than those who do not.” The argument attempts to ground a scientific truth in the perceived societal benefit of accepting it.
-
“I do not believe that the United States Military is presently killing innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. The thought of this is so disturbing and depressing that it cannot possibly be true.” Emotional distress is treated as a refutation of a factual claim, which has no logical bearing on its accuracy.
Why It’s Fallacious: The truth of a proposition is independent of its emotional appeal, its moral implications, or the practical outcomes we might hope for or fear. There is no necessary causal link between the consequences of a belief and the reality of the matter. Just as good outcomes do not make a claim true, bad outcomes do not make it false. A disputed premise needs its own support. Merely assuming that life would be meaningless without God does not establish that premise.
Exception: Reasoning about consequences is appropriate when choosing an action or evaluating a prediction. The fallacy arises when the desirability of a consequence is treated as evidence that a factual proposition is true. For example: “If you don’t study, you will fail the exam” is a predictive warning, not an attempt to prove that studying is good because you’ll pass—it simply reports a likely cause-and-effect relationship without asserting a truth claim based on desirability.
Tip: Ask what evidence supports the claim, separately from whether you welcome its implications. Consequences matter when choosing what to do; wanting or fearing them does not settle what is true.
When to use it
In political debate, rejecting evidence that a problem exists merely because acknowledging it would have unwelcome policy implications.
In marketing, accepting a factual claim about a product because believing it feels reassuring.
In personal decisions, such as choosing a belief system because it offers comfort, rather than evaluating its truth claims.
In scientific discourse, when arguments for a theory are based on its beneficial implications rather than empirical data.
In policy analysis, treating desirable predicted results as proof that the predictions are accurate.
In religious discussions, arguing that a deity must exist because otherwise life would be meaningless.
In business, assuming a strategy’s forecast must be accurate because the company needs the projected profits.
In personal relationships, claiming that a partner's action must have good intentions because the alternative would be too painful to accept.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Harm in the name of God
Hal argues that God does not exist because of the harm done in God's name, but the negative consequences of belief do not disprove God's existence.
Evolution and civilization
Someone claims evolutionary theory is correct because people who accept it are more civilized, but the positive consequences do not constitute evidence for the theory.
Disturbing thought about military
A person denies U.S. military killings in Iraq and Afghanistan because the thought is too disturbing, but emotional distress does not make a claim false.
Positive Appeal to Consequences
If life would be meaningless without God, and life is not meaningless, then God exists: the conditional reasoning is valid. The first premise still needs support. An appeal to consequences would instead accept God’s existence merely because the alternative seems undesirable.
Negative Appeal to Consequences
If God exists, then we will be judged. But we don't want to be judged. Therefore, God does not exist.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Can you recall a time when you believed something solely because its consequences seemed desirable or undesirable, rather than looking at the evidence?
How might the appeal to consequences affect debates on controversial issues like climate change or vaccination?
What strategies can you use to identify and avoid the appeal to consequences in your own reasoning?
How can you identify when someone is making an appeal to consequences in an argument?
Can an appeal to consequences ever be a valid form of reasoning? Under what conditions?
Think of a recent decision you made where the desirability of the outcome influenced your belief in the premises. Was it fallacious?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Logically Fallacious - The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies
- Informal Logical Fallacies A Brief Guide