AD BACULUM FALLACY: CHARACTERISTICS, USES, EXAMPLES - CULTURE VOCABULARY - 2024

The ad baculum fallacy or ad baculum argument occurs when a person appeals to force or the threat of force to achieve acceptance of a conclusion. That is, the argumentator threatens his opponent in the debate with violent or nonviolent, real or threatened coercion.

An argument of this type is used when the negative consequences of having a contrary opinion or position are seen. For example; "Believe that the Earth is the center of the universe or you will be punished."

Appeals to abuse of position, that is, "force makes right", which is why it is considered a variant of the fallacy argument from authority (fallacy argumentum ad consequentiam).

The fallacy or ad baculum argument 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 (for example, I stole out of hunger).

It is called the ad baculum fallacy because of the classic anecdote of a discussion between the philosophers Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein. He threatened Popper with a fireplace poker to make his point.

An example of an 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 overthrown, the Middle East was in danger.

Characteristics of the ad baculum fallacy

The ad baculum fallacy or ad baculum argument (to the cane), defends its argumentative position based on the use of force and explicit or veiled threat.

Try to influence the logical thinking of people, introducing a threatening element in the debate so that a situation is accepted.

This type of argumentation is considered a variant of the argument ad consequentiam (in Latin: "directed to the consequences"). In other words, it is used to respond to an argument or a statement, appealing to the possible negative or positive consequences that an event or action will have.

Sometimes it is associated with the argument from authority (argumentum ad verecund iam), also called magister dixit. This form of fallacy consists of defending something as valid or true only because whoever says it has authority in the matter.

An example of this psychological resource in advertising is television commercials promoting a certain brand of toothpaste. In these advertising pieces, a dentist usually appears recommending its use.

However, although it may be mixed with arguments of consequence or authority, due to its frequent use in politics and journalism, the ad baculum argument is seen as a type of independent fallacy.

It is the opposite of the fallacy of mercy (Argument ad misericordiam), which tries to generate commiseration to hold as valid a conduct, action or circumstance of the person who supports it.

Origin of the ad baculum fallacy

The writer Mario Vargas Llosa narrates a brief dispute between two of the most notable philosophers of the 20th century: Wittgenstein and Popper.

The two met one evening at the Cambridge Moral Science Club, and began a discussion about philosophical problems. Popper confessed in his autobiography that he "burned with impatience to prove to Wittgenstein that they did exist."

At the beginning of his presentation, Popper denied that the objective of philosophy was "to solve riddles", for which he listed a series of topics that in his opinion did constitute real philosophical problems.

Wittgenstein then jumped irritably and interrupted him shouting, but Popper came up to him and continued with his exposition. 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 fell silent and Bertrand Russell intervened to end the discussion and stop such an unusual violent demonstration. "Wittgenstein, drop that poker at once!" Said the British philosopher.

Still holding the poker in his hand, Wittgenstein faced Popper: "Now, give me an example of a moral rule!" Popper immediately replied: "Speakers should not be threatened with a poker." Those present laughed and an annoyed Wittgenstein threw down the poker and left.

From there, 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 explicit, the ad baculum fallacy can be more easily identified and neutralized.

But when presented through innuendo it is less noticeable. In this subtle way, argumentation has less force although it is no less destructive in logical or rational discourse.

That is, the threat is not expressed explicitly: if you do not support X I will beat you up. But rather, I prefer X because he protects us, and I am his representative here, who will you support?

The threat is not directly expressed in the second example, but it is understood.

The ad baculum fallacy is closely linked to the argumentum ad terrorem (threat). However, there are disagreements about their relationship. Some consider the ad terrorem argument to be a subtype of the ad baculum fallacy or argument.

Other authors affirm that in reality the two variants are part of the same fallacy. But there are those who maintain that these are two different types of fallacies.

The figure of the 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 were arguing about the measures to be taken to end World War II. 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 does not explain at all the effects of supporting or not supporting an action. The same is true when it comes to a true or false argument.

Since the Middle Ages this fallacy has been identified as a persuasion strategy, although this type of argument is just as old to man.

The ad baculum fallacy as a non-logical argument

The non-logical form of the ad baculum fallacy is:

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 he avoid Z.

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 true what Y tells him to avoid the consequence Z.

Examples

Possible argument of a general

"You better believe me if you don't want to find yourself rotting in a mass grave."

11 of September

An example of this type of international fallacy, which was widely spread, refers to the actions taken by the United States after the terrorist attack of September 11.

Following 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 alleged secret reports, said that Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader, had in his possession "weapons of mass destruction."

That is, the War on Iraq is justified because of the underlying threat. If Iraq was not attacked, the Iraqi regime would attack its neighbors and the West. As a persuasive element that gave certainty to the threat, there were the images of the horror experienced in New York.

Nuclear energy in Iran

A more recent example is the development of nuclear energy by Iran, which began precisely during the radical government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"If Iran upholds its right to use atomic energy for civil purposes, it will have to confront the decisions made by the international community." Nuclear power in the hands of the Iranian regime was taken for granted as a threat.

It was not in dispute whether or not Iran had the right to use a different energy source in addition to the oil one. The discussion focused on the negative consequences of using this type of energy.

Daily life

In everyday life these situations occur daily with the argumentative fallacy of the use of force and the abuse of position.

-A says: Dogs should not be left loose in the street because they can bite someone. B responds: My dog ​​is free to be wherever he wants, I am not interested in what you consider.

- “Better pay your taxes, because if not your salary and properties will be seized; so that you don't stay on the street, better pay ”.

- “You must wear a seat belt, because if you don't 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 lives of the driver and passengers, which is its true function, but to avoid the fine.

References

1. Fallacy "ad baculum" (to the cane). Consulted of aprenderadebatir.es
2. Walton, Douglas: Relevance in Argumentation. Consulted of books.google.co.ve
3. Juan Caicedo Piedrahíta. Vargas Llosa, Popper and Wittgenstein. Consulted of elpais.com
4. Ad baculum argument. Consulted of es.wikipedia.org
5. Biography of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Consulted of biografiasyvidas.com
6. Examples of Ad Baculum. Consulted of rhetoricas.com
7. Argumentum ad baculum. Consulted of es.metapedia.org