Appeal to Fear
When fear, not based on evidence or reason, is being used as the primary motivator to get others to accept an idea, proposition, or conclusion.
THE IDEA
Appeal to Fear
argumentum in terrorem (also known as: argumentum ad metum, argument from adverse consequences, scare tactics)
Description: When fear, not based on evidence or reason, is being used as the primary motivator to get others to accept an idea, proposition, or conclusion.
Logical Form: Accept X or a frightening outcome will occur, without adequate evidence connecting that outcome to rejecting X.
Example #1: Scenario: Bailing out automakers with the warning of a collapsed economy. Explanation: A warning about a “collapsed economy” needs evidence about the risk and the likely effect of a bailout. Invoking the frightening outcome alone does not supply that evidence.
Example #2: Scenario: Timmy’s faith is waning, and his mom uses fear of Hell to convince him to believe in God. Explanation: This is a fallacy because mom provided no evidence that disbelief in God will lead to an eternity of suffering in Hell. But because the possibility is terrifying to Timmy, he “accepts” the proposition (to believe in God), despite the lack of actual evidence.
Exception: A frightening warning can be reasonable when evidence supports the risk and its connection to the proposed action. What matters is the support for the claim, not whether fear is the listener’s primary motivation.
Tip: Think in terms of probabilities, not possibilities. Anything is possible, including a lion busting into your home at night and mauling you to death – but it is very, very improbable. Ask what evidence supports the risk and whether the proposed action would reduce it.
When to use it
A politician arguing that without voting for him, the country will fall into chaos, but providing no evidence.
An advertisement claiming that if you don't buy a certain security system, your home will be burglarized.
A parent telling a child that if they don't study, they will never get a job, without showing the actual likelihood.
A company warning employees that if they don't accept a pay cut, the company will go bankrupt, without financial evidence.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Bailing out automakers
A warning about a “collapsed economy” needs evidence about the risk and the likely effect of a bailout. Invoking the frightening outcome alone does not supply that evidence.
Timmy's waning faith
Timmy’s faith is waning, but mom, like most moms, is very good at scaring the Hell, in this case, into, Timmy. This is a fallacy because mom provided no evidence that disbelief in God will lead to an eternity of suffering in Hell. But because the possibility is terrifying to Timmy, he “accepts” the proposition (to believe in God), despite the lack of actual evidence.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Can you identify a time when someone used fear to persuade you? Did you evaluate the actual evidence or probability of the feared outcome?
How can you distinguish between a legitimate warning based on evidence and a fallacious appeal to fear?
Why is it important to think in terms of probabilities rather than possibilities when evaluating fear-based arguments?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Logically Fallacious - The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies