Argumentum ad baculum

{{title-italics}}{{logicnav}}
An '''''argumentum ad baculum''''' ([[Latin]]: "argument to the stick") is a [[logical fallacy]] in which the arguer threatens their debate opponent with real or threatened violent or nonviolent coercion.

As with the '''appeal to bribery''', it is the offer of a pleasant consequence if you go along with the argument.

The fallacy is an [[appeal to fear]], an [[argument from consequences]], and an [[informal fallacy]].

==Alternate names==
*appeal to force 
*appeal to power
*appeal to bribery

==Form==
The argument takes this form:
*Accepting '''X''' leads to action '''Y''' against me.
*I do not want action '''Y''' to occur to me.
*Therefore, '''X''' is not true / not false.

Y could be anything from [[torture]] to the loss of a potential bribe, as long as it's motivational and tied to acceptance of a proposition.

===Legitimate use===
As the ''argumentum ad baculum'' is an [[appeal to consequences]], it's not fallacious if the argument is based on avoiding consequences rather than any truth value (such as countering [[epistemological nihilism]]):
{{syl
|2=If you do X you will suffer punishment Y.
|4=You don't want to suffer punishment Y.
|5=C|6=Therefore you shouldn't do X.
}}

This applies even if the cause of the punishment is itself unjust. Thus, an argument against trying to escape [[slavery]] (you will be whipped if you attempt to escape) might be a valid reason to not escape slavery, even if slavery is a moral [[abomination]] and illegal in the place to which one escapes ([[Canada]]).

==Explanation==
The danger in holding a premise is irrelevant to the [[truth]] of that premise. This argument doesn't make any statement as to whether X is right or wrong, or whether punishment Y ''should'' follow action X, only that it's probably not something you want to do.

==Examples==
# If I don't think the boss is nice, I will be fired.
# I don't want to be fired.
# Therefore, I will think the boss is nice.

Perhaps the most simple example would be:
*Believe what I say, or I will hit you.

===Spanish Inquisition===
{{main|Spanish Inquisition}}
A modified form of the argument was otherwise known as the Inquisitorial Question, and took this form:
*If person '''A''' denies being a [[heretic]], then we will torture '''A'''.
*Therefore, '''A''' is a heretic.

It proved very useful for getting almost ''all'' the Inquisition's targets to admit they were heretics. It may also have been effective because [[Monty Python|nobody expected it]].

==Nothing to do with==
The actual {{wpl|baculum}} in animal anatomy. As such, this is not "[[Mansplaining|Argument to the penis bone]]",<ref group=note>But you ''have to'' admit that would be funny.</ref> especially since [[humans]] lack said bone.

==See also==
*[[SLAPP suit]]
*[[Threat]]

==External links==
*{{wpa|Argumentum ad baculum}}
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20070410050815/http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/bribery.asp Appeal to Bribery], Bruce Thompson
*[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppealToForce TvTropes' article] on this subject

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Emotional appeals]]
[[Category:Informal fallacies]]
[[Category:Latin phrases]]
[[Category:Authoritarianism]]
[[Category:Totalitarianism]]

Categories: Emotional appeals, Informal fallacies, Latin phrases, Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism