The fallacy ad baculum or ad baculum argument occurs when a person appeals to the force or threat of force to achieve acceptance of a conclusion. That is to say, the argumentator threatens his opponent of debate with violent or non-violent coercion, real or threatened.
An argument of this type is used when the negative consequences of having an opinion or opposing position are seen. For example; "Believe that the Earth is the center of the universe or you will be punished."
Appeals to the abuse of the position, that is,"the force does the right", that's why it is considered a variant of the fallacy argument of authority (fallacy argumentum ad consequentiam).
The fallacy or argument ad baculum is the opposite of the use of the resource of mercy as a validating element, in which instead of defending an argument with threats it does so by appealing to mercy (example, I stole by hunger).
It is called ad baculum fallacy by the classic anecdote of a discussion between the philosophers Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein. He threatened Popper with a fireplace poker to make his case.
An example of ad baculum argument was the justification of the invasion of Iraq by the United States under the argument of the possession of mass destruction by the dictator Saddam Hussein. If Hussein was not toppled, the Middle East was in danger.
What is the fallacy ad baculum?
The fallacy ad baculum or argument ad baculum (to the staff), defends its argumentative position based on the use of force and the explicit or veiled threat.
Try to influence the logical thinking of people, introducing a threatening element in the debate to accept a situation.
This type of argument is considered a variant of the argument ad consequentiam (in Latin:"directed to the consequences"). That is, it is used to respond to an argument or an affirmation, appealing to the possible negative or positive consequences that an act or action will have.
Sometimes it is associated with the authority argument ( argumentum ad verecund iam), also called magister dixit . This form of fallacy, is to defend something as valid or true only because who says it has authority in the matter.
An example of this psychological resource in advertising are television commercials that promote a certain brand of toothpaste. In these advertising pieces, usually appears a dentist recommending its use.
However, although it can be mixed with arguments of consequence or authority, due to the frequent use made in politics and journalism, the argument ad baculum it is considered as a kind of independent fallacy.
It is the opposite of the fallacy of mercy ( Argument ad misericordiam ) that tries to generate commiseration to sustain as valid a behavior, action or circumstance of the person who supports it.
Origin of the fallacy ad baculum
The writer Mario Vargas Llosa narrates a brief sustained between two of the most notable philosophers of the twentieth century: Wittgenstein and Popper.
Both met one night at the Moral Science Club of Cambridge, and started a discussion about philosophical problems. Popper confessed in his autobiography that"he was burning with impatience to prove to Wittgenstein that they did exist."
To begin his presentation, Popper denied that the goal of philosophy was"solve riddles", so he listed a number of topics that in his opinion if they were true philosophical problems.
Wittgenstein then jumped up irritably and interrupted him shouting, but Popper came up to him and continued with his presentation. At that moment, Wittgenstein took the poker from the fireplace and brandishing it wanted to emphasize his words to impose his criteria.
Then the room was silent and Bertrand Russell intervened to end the discussion and stop such violent manifestation by other unusual. "Wittgenstein, immediately release that poker!"Said the British philosopher.
Even with the poker in his hand, Wittgenstein faced Popper:"Let's see, give me an example of a moral rule!" Popper immediately responded:"You should not threaten the speakers with a poker." Those present laughed and Wittgenstein annoyed threw the poker and left.
From there on the arguments that appeal to the use of force are called 'ad baculum'.
Applications
This type of fallacy has two ways of presenting itself: the logical fallacy and the non-logical fallacy. When it is explicit, the fallacy ad baculum It can be identified and neutralized more easily.
But when it is presented in a veiled way through insinuations - as is more frequent - it is less perceptible. In this subtle way, argumentation has less force although it is not less destructive in logical or rational discourse.
That is, the threat is not expressed explicitly: If you do not support X, I'll beat you up. S rather, I prefer X because it protects us, and I am your representative here, who will you support?
The threat is not expressed directly in the second example, but it is understood.
The fallacy ad baculum It is closely linked to the argumentum ad terrorem (threat). However, there are divergences about their relationship. Some consider the argument ad terrorem is a subtype of the fallacy or argument ad baculum .
Other authors affirm that in reality the two variants are part of the same fallacy. But there are those who argue that these are two different types of fallacies.
The figure of baculum (stick or club), internationally means"war"or"threat of war". An example of this fallacy of authority is the one that alludes to the dialogue in Yalta between Josef Stalin and Winston Churchill, where Franklin D. Roosevelt also participated.
The three discussed the measures that should be taken to end the Second World War. To support his arguments, Churchill appealed to the advice expressed by the Pope. Then Stalin replied:"How many divisions do you say the pope has for combat?"
The ad baculum fallacy as a logical argument
This type of fallacy is expressed as follows:
If X decides not to support Y, then Z will occur (Z is the threatening element against X). While Y is the objective element of the persuasion strategy.
The fallacy of the argument is that coercion or threat at all explain the effects of supporting or not an action. The same happens when it comes to an argument of true or false.
Since the Middle Ages this fallacy was identified as a strategy of persuasion, although this type of argument is as old as man's.
Examples
Possible argument of a general
"You'd better believe me if you do not want to find yourself rotting in a common grave.
11 of September
An example of this type of fallacy of international character that was very widespread, refers to the actions undertaken by the United States after the terrorist attack of September 11.
After the demolition of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, the US government accused the Iraqi government of being a threat to the world. George Bush based on supposedly secret reports said that Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader, had"weapons of mass destruction"in his possession.
That is, the war against Iraq is justified because of the underlying threat. If Iraq was not attacked, the regime of this country would attack its neighbors and the West. As a persuasive element that gave certainty to the threat, there were the images of the horror lived in New York.
A more recent example is the development of nuclear energy by Iran, which began just during the radical government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"If Iran upholds its right to use atomic energy for civilian purposes, it will have to face the decisions taken by the international community." It was taken for granted that nuclear power in the hands of the Iranian regime was a threat.
It was not being discussed whether Iran had the right or not to use a different source of energy, in addition to the oil company. The discussion focused on the negative consequences of the use of this type of energy.
In everyday life these situations occur daily with the plot fallacy of the use of force and abuse of position.
A says: Dogs should not be left loose on the street because they can bite someone.
B responds: My dog is free to be wherever he wants, I do not care what you consider.
The ad baculum fallacy as a non-logical argument
The non-logical form of the fallacy ad baculum
If X does not accept that Y is true then Z will occur (the attack or coercion against X).
According to this argument, X must accept the truth of Y because only then will Z avoid it.
It is a non-logical form of fallacy because the conclusion has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the threatening argument Y. Thus X must accept as truth what he says and to avoid the consequence Z.
Examples
"Better pay your taxes, because if not your salary and property will be seized; so you do not stay on the street better pay."
"You must use the seat belt, otherwise the police will fine you. Better put it on when you see a policeman on the street." The argument is used not to protect the life of the driver and passengers, which is its true function, but to avoid the fine.
References
- Fallacy"ad baculum"(to the cane). Consulted of aprenderadebatir.es
- Walton, Douglas: Relevance in Argumentation. Consulted by books.google.co.ve
- Juan Caicedo Piedrahita. Vargas Llosa, Popper and Wittgenstein. Consulted by elpais.com
- Argument ad baculum. Consulted on es.wikipedia.org
- Biography of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Consulted of biografiasyvidas.com
- Examples of Ad Baculum. Consulted of retoricas.com
- Argumentum ad baculum. Consulted on es.metapedia.org