![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sam, please provide citations of people challenging the status of Appeal to consequences as a logical fallacy. It is listed in all the lists of fallacies I have encountered. - snoyes 08:32, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The name is a little missleading. Arguing that something is a bad idea because it has bad consequences is of course perfectly valid. Arguing that a statement must be false because it beeing true would have bad consequences is a fallacy.
Subjectivity isn't necessarily part of an appeal to consequences. The page which is cited, the one on logical fallacies, is very good, but it doesn't mention subjectivity at all. Even if goodness and badness, preference and aversion are objective, they can still be part of an argumentum ad consequentiam. 75.18.118.54 (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
There are no references. slambo 10:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Ray Comfort's quote should not be listed, because as the article itself says "an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories" —Preceding Justin G
The claim about the axiom of choice seems to perhaps be false, but not fallacious. It seems to me just to be a rather simple modus tollens. If Axiom of Choice, then no common sense; ergo no axiom of choice. Of course the argument could be false and one might have to give up such common sense, but there does not seem to be any implied prescription of common sense being kept for better outcomes; rather just the descriptive claim that common sense is not violated. Cake (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The following (run on) sentence was not clear to me at first. It even seemed like the first half contradicted the last half.
"Appeal to consequences, however, does not refer to arguments that address whether a premise is a "good" or "bad" (as opposed to true or false) based on the appeal of its consequence, which are not logical arguments but are, instead, ethical arguments."
I think the following might make it better, but I'm not terribly familiar with this topic and I'm not sure if I should make this edit, so I put it up for discussion instead. I think this change might also help address an earlier comment made here, though this somewhat restates what the previous paragraph already stated. There's probably a better way to emphasize the point.
"An appeal to consequences, however, only refers to an argument which makes an assertion of the truth value based on the consequences. The argument can be a valid ethical argument instead of a logical fallacy if it makes it clear that the argument addresses the desirability, the goodness or badness, instead of the truthfulness."
Xibur 07:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Could we see the first Wizard's Rule as an observation/restatement of the commonness of the Appeal to consequences? --maru (talk) contribs 03:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Really, this will not do unqualified. Read William James. Septentrionalis 23:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The assertion that a fallacy is worse when its major premise is factually invalid is also peculiar. Reasoning is equally invalid if the premises are true, and equally valid if they are false. Septentrionalis 23:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see any difference between appeal to consequences and reductio ad absurdum. Champignac 08:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is tagged with ((verify)), but most claims are fairly obvious from external links. So use ((fact)) if anything is in particular need of verification. Superm401 - Talk 09:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
In the interests of fairness and accuracy
To all honest editors here, I would like to point out the quote from Ray Comfort, whatever your personal relationship with him, is quite obviously deceitful. I have read the source document, which nowhere contains the quote, thus making this a primary source and thus violating wikipedia's rules. However that is not my problem, in my opinion the rewriting of the argument is not too bad outside of the wikipedia rules and I would allow it in a debate, however the description of it is reprehensible. I will here suggest what should be given as the summary; "Ray Comfort arguing against the use of fallacious arguments by Atheists." and not "Ray Comfort arguing for the existence of God.". Here he is arguing that Atheists in fact use argumentae (plural form?) ad consequentiam, and any effort on his part to introduce real arguments or proof would be unwanted by his opponents and hence in vain. Whilst I have an account here I can't be bothered logging in as it will take me away from the page. [Anonymous] 09:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.110.134 (talk)
Nibblet (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
How is it not a logical argument? Pascal argues that since suffering in Hell is eternal and infinite, one should try to prevent going to Hell even if it's very unlikely that Hell exists. It's a risk/reward thing. There are many things wrong with it, but I don't see how it's not logical. 99.244.97.75 (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
This depends on the theory of truth you're using. As said and ignored somewhat up above, William James would strongly disagree that an appeal to consequences is a fallacy. This needs to be mentioned. 157.193.106.30 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is Pascal's Wager listed in the links section as if it is a case-in-point? I did a quick google check to see what other people had to say about this and the only sites that came up were skeptic websites.
This is exactly why I'm not a big fan of this system. If you're clever enough you can make subtle swipes towards some group of people you disagree with and get away with it...I've seen so much of this that it really makes me second guess wikipedia information.
If anyone looks at my "history": I'm at a university so my IP is the same as many others! It wasn't me :)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.67.135 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
We have a good famous example here: Tyrannosaurus_in_popular_culture#Other_appearances:
In the Calvin and Hobbes comics, fantasy sequences often featured Tyrannosaurus rex. In one story arc, in which Calvin writes a school paper on the T. rex predator/scavenger debate, he argues that T. rex was a predator because "They're so much cooler that way."