Baculum, Argumentum Ad III/Appeal to Force
Photo: Granville Street, 1901, Facebook
I. Preface
II. Baculum, Argumentum Ad/Appeal to Force
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
'When reason fails you, appeal to the rod.' (46).
Pirie lists Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin as a classic adherent. (47).
This fallacious approach uses force as means of persuasion as the argument would be lost without it. (46). Interestingly, the first leader of the Soviet Union also made use of this fallacy...
III. Vladimir Lenin
Referenced from an earlier article on this website. Vladimir Lenin's views on the use of terror are referenced, which make use of this 'fallacy of force', in my humble opinion.
My article
I referenced
Cited
'From the 1 September 1918 edition of the Bolshevik newspaper, Krasnaya Gazeta:'
'“We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the floodgates of that sea. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood. For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinovief and Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois - more blood, as much as possible.”'
'Excerpt from an interview with Felix Dzerzhinsky published in Novaia Zhizn on 14 July 1918.'
'We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Soviet Government and of the new order of life. We judge quickly. In most cases only a day passes between the apprehension of the criminal and his sentence. When confronted with evidence criminals in almost every case confess; and what argument can have greater weight than a criminal's own confession.”'
'Excerpts from V.I. Lenin, “The Lessons of the Moscow Uprising” (1906) Keeping in mind the failure of the 1905 revolution, Lenin argued that it was imperative for an even more ruthless application of force in the pursuit of overthrowing the Tsar’s regime.'
'“We should have taken to arms more resolutely, energetically and aggressively; we should have explained to the masses that it was impossible to confine things to a peaceful strike and that a fearless and relentless armed fight was necessary. And now we must at last openly and publicly admit that political strikes are inadequate; we must carry on the widest agitation among the masses in favour of an armed uprising and make no attempt to obscure this question by talk about "preliminary stages", or to befog it in any way. We would be deceiving both ourselves and the people if we concealed from the masses the necessity of a desperate, bloody war of extermination, as the immediate task of the coming revolutionary action.'
---
IV. Baculum, Argumentum Ad III/Appeal to Force continued
Baculum, Argumentum Ad (appeal to the stick, appeal to force) would be a philosophical and psychological tool at times of political dictatorships, radical religious fundamentalists, radical liberals, and the corporate world, as examples. This of course includes various forms of communism, as noted.
The fallacy could be used on a parental level...
Example:
'Kid if you do not do as I say, you will get whooped'. (A classic approach, I do not approve of)
Pirie explains. However, the threat of force does not have to be in the form of physical violence. (46). This fallacy occurs when 'unpleasant consequences are promised for failing to comply with the speaker's wishes'. (46).
The author reasons that irrelevant material is brought into an argument. (46). The argument is largely abandoned and instead, forceful persuasion is used and depended on. There is a 'breakdown and subversion of reason'. (46).
(Certainly, a totalitarian, dictatorship like the Soviet Union, subverted reason...)
V. Lander University
Philosophy, Lander University
Cited
'I. Argumentum ad Baculum (fear of force): the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion. The ad baculum derives its strength from an appeal to human timidity or fear and is a fallacy when the appeal is not logically related to the claim being made. In other words, the emotion resulting from a threat rather than a pertinent reason is used to cause agreement with the purported conclusion of the argument.
The ad baculum contains implicitly or explicitly a threat. Behind this threat is often the idea that in the end, "Might makes right." Threats, per se, however, are not fallacies because they involve behavior, not arguments.'
Cited
'I. Argumentum ad Baculum (fear of force): the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion. The ad baculum derives its strength from an appeal to human timidity or fear and is a fallacy when the appeal is not logically related to the claim being made. In other words, the emotion resulting from a threat rather than a pertinent reason is used to cause agreement with the purported conclusion of the argument.
The ad baculum contains implicitly or explicitly a threat. Behind this threat is often the idea that in the end, "Might makes right." Threats, per se, however, are not fallacies because they involve behavior, not arguments.'
('Might makes right'. how Marxist! My add)
Cited
'Often the informal structure of argumentum ad baculum is as follows.
If statement p is accepted or action a is done, then logically irrelevant event x will happen. Event x is bad, dangerous, or threatening. Therefore, statement p is true or action a should be rejected.'
Cited
'II. Examples of ad baculum fallacies:
Chairman of the Board: "All those opposed to my arguments for the opening of a new department, signify by saying, ‘I resign.’
"The Department of Transportation needs to reconsider the speed limit proposals on interstate highways for the simple reason that if they do not, their departmental budget for Department of Transportation will be cut by 25%.'
End Citations
My example
Space Commander: 'All those opposed to my orders in regard to the new security measures can open up the airlock and step outside and go for a very long walk...'
'Often the informal structure of argumentum ad baculum is as follows.
If statement p is accepted or action a is done, then logically irrelevant event x will happen. Event x is bad, dangerous, or threatening. Therefore, statement p is true or action a should be rejected.'
Cited
'II. Examples of ad baculum fallacies:
Chairman of the Board: "All those opposed to my arguments for the opening of a new department, signify by saying, ‘I resign.’
"The Department of Transportation needs to reconsider the speed limit proposals on interstate highways for the simple reason that if they do not, their departmental budget for Department of Transportation will be cut by 25%.'
End Citations
My example
Space Commander: 'All those opposed to my orders in regard to the new security measures can open up the airlock and step outside and go for a very long walk...'
VI. Logically Fallacious
Logically Fallacious
References: {apa} Jason, G. (1987). The nature of the argumentum ad baculum. Philosophia, 17(4), 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02381067 {/apa}
Cited
'argumentum ad baculum (also known as: argument to the cudgel, appeal to the stick)
Description: When force, coercion, or even a threat of force is used in place of a reason in an attempt to justify a conclusion.
Logical Form: If you don’t accept X as true, I will hurt you.'
Cited
'Jordan: Dad, why do I have to spend my summer at Jesus camp?
Dad: Because if you don’t, you will spend your entire summer in your room with nothing but your Bible!
Explanation: Instead of a reason, dad gave Jordan a description of a punishment that would happen.
Exception: If the force, coercion, or threat of force is not being used as a reason but as a fact or consequence, then it would not be fallacious, especially when a legitimate reason is given with the “threat”, direct or implied.'
Logically Fallacious
References: {apa} Jason, G. (1987). The nature of the argumentum ad baculum. Philosophia, 17(4), 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02381067 {/apa}
Cited
'argumentum ad baculum (also known as: argument to the cudgel, appeal to the stick)
Description: When force, coercion, or even a threat of force is used in place of a reason in an attempt to justify a conclusion.
Logical Form: If you don’t accept X as true, I will hurt you.'
Cited
'Jordan: Dad, why do I have to spend my summer at Jesus camp?
Dad: Because if you don’t, you will spend your entire summer in your room with nothing but your Bible!
Explanation: Instead of a reason, dad gave Jordan a description of a punishment that would happen.
Exception: If the force, coercion, or threat of force is not being used as a reason but as a fact or consequence, then it would not be fallacious, especially when a legitimate reason is given with the “threat”, direct or implied.'
VII. Valid arguments
This fallacy might be used by a person or entity when as Prie noted, reason fails.
The use of this fallacy could occur for several reasons but, non-exhaustively, it could be used as...
1. X provides a sound argument with a true premise (s) and a true conclusion, that is rejected by Y.
2. X provides a less than a sound argument, that is rejected by Y.
X then resorts to the use of fallacy under review.
---
A valid deductive argument can have
False premises and a true conclusion (FT)
False premises and a false conclusion (FF)
True premises and a true conclusion (TT)
However
True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid. Valid arguments with all true premises are called sound arguments. The conclusion also being true.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
This fallacy might be used by a person or entity when as Prie noted, reason fails.
The use of this fallacy could occur for several reasons but, non-exhaustively, it could be used as...
1. X provides a sound argument with a true premise (s) and a true conclusion, that is rejected by Y.
2. X provides a less than a sound argument, that is rejected by Y.
X then resorts to the use of fallacy under review.
---
A valid deductive argument can have
False premises and a true conclusion (FT)
False premises and a false conclusion (FF)
True premises and a true conclusion (TT)
However
True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid. Valid arguments with all true premises are called sound arguments. The conclusion also being true.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
LANDER UNIVERSITY, PHILSOPHY (1997-2020) Argumentum ad Baculum https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/force.html
Lander University.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.
LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS: References: {apa} Jason, G. (1987), The nature of the argumentum ad baculum. Philosophia, 17(4), 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02381067 {/apa}
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
http://www.worldfuturefund.org
No comments:
Post a Comment