Logical Fallacy of Proof by Consequences / Argument from Consequences / Parade of the Horribles / Argumentum Ad Consequentiam / Appeal to Consequences of a Belief / Argument to the Consequences

The fallacy of argument from consequences occurs when someone argues that something is false because believing in it would have negative consequences or that something is true because not believing in it would have negative consequences. This argument is irrational because it gives a consequence (often imagined) and says that, because of this consequence, something is true or false.

Should we not think about consequences then?

Of course consequences are important, but they need to be stated as the reason for doing or not doing something rather than the reason that the cause of the consequences is true. Consequences cannot make something true or false. For instance, if someone is backing slowly toward a cliff unaware of the danger, you don't say, The proof that there is a cliff is the fact that if you fall you will kill yourself. If someone has not received Christ as Savior and has never thought through the consequences, you don't say, The proof that Jesus Christ exists and that you need Him as Savior is that, if you don't receive Him, you will end up in Hell. If someone is thinking about entering into some form of addictive behavior: sexual sin or thought, sight, or deed; drugs; drinking; anger and bitterness; violence; stealing; lying, you don't say, The proof that these things are sinful is that if you engage in them, you will suffer consequences. (see fallacy abuse below)

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Consequences / Argument from Consequences / Parade of the Horribles / Argumentum Ad Consequentiam / Appeal to Consequences of a Belief / Argument to the Consequences

“Creation is not science and ought not to be taught in schools. If we teach in schools, children will not learn to think.”

Along with the other obvious logical fallacies in this statement, this is the logical fallacy of argument from consequences.”

"Of course global warming is a reality. Have you thought about what is going to happen? It will be the end of the world as we know it unless we can have a totalitarian worldwide government."

The appeal to consequences doesn't prove global warming. There is almost no global warming happening over the last 15 years. * In fact, the one-world-government people started with the alarm over global cooling in the 1970s and are now switching to the term, "climate change," so that every event that happens can be proof of this potential disaster.

"The resolution focused on the way that creationists across the continent, using the model pioneered in America, have been targeting education, and warned of 'a real risk of serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science'. 'An ‘all things are equal’ attitude,' it concludes, 'may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous.'"

This remark, by Peter C Kjærgaard, was posted on his website. This implies that the teaching of creation, or even teaching the whole truth about the problems with evolution, would cause confusion. The article assumes evolution to be true and creation to be false without giving any evidence to support the claim Mixing evolution with creation is claimed to cause confusion, as if evolution were a religion. If Peter is right, then we can’t let the children hear both sides of the issue. It would be dangerous. This is an argument from consequences, where supposed consequences are substituted for reasons that Peter thinks we all ought to believe in evolution.

“God doesn’t exist. And, there is no evidence for God. And I’m not going to seek Him as you suggest, because I’m not going to be subject to any God.”

The feared consequence is being subject to God—an absolute consequence of submitting one’s life to Him. However, the reason given for not looking at the evidence is the consequence. For this reason, it is irrational to claim that the consequence is evidence that God does not exist. (See if you can see any of the other logical fallacies with this line of reasoning.)

Fallacy Abuse

John Morris, in his writings, gave reasons that creation ought to be taught in school and evolution ought not to be taught in school. Two of those reasons were the consequences of teaching creation versus evolution. All the others dealt with the truth of creation versus the falsity evolution. Atheists were quick to accuse John Morris of the fallacy of argument from consequences. Here is why the Atheists are guilty of fallacy abuse. John Morris used logic that was sound when he was proving the truth of creation and the error of evoluiton. His arguments were also sound when proving that evolution ought not to be taught in school and creation ought to be taught in school. The Atheists making the claim against John Morris, accused him of trying to prove creation when John was proving that evolution ought not to be taught in schools. That is a different point altogether.

Fallacy Abuse

Rocky: "The thing is that you have the responsibility to know about Jesus for yourself. Each person is responsible for himself or herself. And Jesus is verifiable. Here is the method to verify and validate. Go to Him in sincerity, respect, and a desire to do His will. Yield yourself to Him. Ask Him to come to you and to forgive you for your sins. He will then begin to show you not only His reality but His will and the validity of the Bible. I can't make you do that though. It wouldn't do any good if I could. If you are claiming that you don't know, God says that you do, so you would have to convince Him. What I think is of no consequence to anyone.

Sandy: "That's the logical fallacy of argument from consequences."

Rocky: "There is a fallacy of appeal to consequences, that is, using consequences as proof that something is true rather than that something either ought to be done or ought not to be done. Consequences cannot prove that the cause of the consequences is actually something real--that the threat is real. The fact that there are consequences is not a fallacy. It is fallacious to say that consequences prove anything to be true. But that is not what happened here. And I didn't use my own experience as proof or consequences as proof. I told you that I have proved it to myself and that you can also prove it to yourself. And I told you how. As to consequences, there are consequences in life. To realize this is not a fallacy.

Say you are backing toward a cliff and someone shouts out to stop or you will fall, but you don't turn around an look. You just keep backing up. To you, there is no proof that you can see. They tell you to turn around and look but you refuse. Will there be consequences when you fall? Of course. However, just because someone tells you there is a cliff and you will fall and that they can see it, these are not fallacies because they are not given to convince you of the truth of the cliff but to warn you of the presence of the cliff. You have to take action to see the cliff for yourself.

I don't want to try to convince you of anything. I have told you the Truth and told you how to verify and validate. I didn't tell you the consequences because you already know all about those to the point where you react to any indication that there might be consequences. I didn't tell you these things as proof of anything, so there is no fallacy. As to the proof, you would find the proof by following the instructions I gave you: seeking God in that specific way. You didn't say that you would not do this. Whether or not you do is up to you and doesn't affect me, since only you have the responsibility for your decision and the consequences. The walking backwards towards a cliff is a very accurate analogy. It gets all of what I mentioned just now except that the consequence is understated."