Argumentum ad baculum

This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help by introducing citations to additional sources. Find sources:  –  ·  ·  · scholar · JSTOR (September 2011)

Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for "argument to the cudgel" or "appeal to the stick") is the fallacy committed when one makes an appeal to force^[1] to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.^[2][3] One participates in argumentum ad baculum when one emphasizes the negative consequences of holding the contrary position, regardless of the contrary position's truth value — particularly when the argument-maker himself causes (or threatens to cause) those negative consequences. It is a special case of the appeal to consequences.

Examples[]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives this example of argumentum ad baculum:

If you don’t join our demonstration against the expansion of the park, we will evict you from your apartment.

So, you should join our demonstration against the expansion of the park.^[4]

The phrase has also been used^[5] to describe the 1856 caning of Charles Sumner, an abolitionist Senator, by one of his pro-slavery opponents, Preston Brooks, on the floor of the United States Senate.

See also[]

• Argument from authority
• Conformity (psychology)
• Formal fallacy
• In terrorem
• Legal threat
• Management by perkele
• Might makes right
• Pascal's Wager
• Proof by intimidation

References[]

This logic-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by .

• v
• t