Appeal to Consequences: Difference between revisions

{{trope}}

:: The truth or falsity of a statement is decided by the positive or negative consequences of it.

 

:: Ain't it fun when you can use the same fallacy and essentially the same argument and "prove" diametrically opposite conclusions?

 

* Lord Denning actually used this as a reason to quash the Birmingham Six's appeal against their conviction. If they were innocent, he argued, it means that the police must have lied and forged confessions. If the police really did lie, this would be really bad for society. Therefore, they must be guilty.

* Child molestation accusations, also a case of [[Appeal to Fear]]. It's horrible to have an active child molester roaming around, so people accused of child molestation are often never trusted again by society, whether there's any proof of it or not. Taking note of this trope in this instance, though, can cause the opposite problem: assuming an accused child molester is innocent when they're not, because it'd be horrible to accuse someone wrongly of child molestation. The issue is a very polarizing instance of this appeal, which is why there was so much drama over [[Michael Jackson]].

[[Category:Logic Tropes]]

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]