Appeal to Consequences
Updated 2026-08-05
INTRODUCTION
English translation pending.
CORE DEFINITION
A logical fallacy in which the pleasantness or unpleasantness of a claim's consequences is used as evidence for its truth or falsity. The error consists in substituting what we wish were the case for what the evidence supports, so the argument concludes that a claim must be true because accepting its denial would be unbearable. The core claim is that truth does not depend on desirability. The qualification is that consequences may legitimately guide what we do, though never what is the case.
SCAFFOLDING EFFECT
Reduce cognitive load
- Use Structure Spotting: Notice arguments of the form because the outcome is good, the claim must be true. - Use Wish Separation: Separate what believing a claim would win you from whether the claim is actually true. - Use Evidence Demand: Require support for the proposition that is independent of its consequences.
Anchor fast decisions
Human judgment is influenced by what is comfortable to believe, so a desirable implication makes a claim feel more credible while an alarming implication makes it feel less so. The fallacy formalizes this influence into a premise, which lets the emotional pull stand in for evidence. Because the conclusion follows from preference rather than from data, the argument can justify almost any belief that happens to be reassuring.
MINIMUM ACTION
In progress 0/1Practice this model in one real situation:
account_treeGenealogyexpand_more
menu_bookReferencesexpand_more
Source support: Explicit
- zh.wikipedia.orghttps://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%A8%B4%E8%AB%B8%E5%BE%8C%E6%9E%9Cverified
PRIVATE NOTES · Only visible to you
SAVED Q&A
ENTRY Q&A · Private saving available
Ask with a clear boundary
thinkingmodels answers from published entry context only.
Your question is sent to thinkingmodels. The answer uses public entry context only.
RELATED MODELS