Argumentum ad Consequentiam and Ethics

[lennybound]

An Appeal to Consequences is a logical fallacy that can take either of the following forms:

If P, then Q will occur.
Q is desirable.
Therefore, P is true.

If P, then Q will occur.
Q is undesirable.
Therefore, P is false.
 Such an appeal is considered fallacious because no matter how desirable or undesirable the outcomes of a belief are, that has no

Comments

[lennybound]

Word.

Wikipedia (which is a very reliable source, I know) says that an Appeal to Consequences is valid in ethics, especially concerning consequentialist ethical theories (like you pointed out). However, if we accept this it seems that we’re forced into an extremely strange situation.

Let us imagine a world in which (for the sake of argument) there is no X, but the majority of people think that there is an X. Now, let’s say that there is a small minority (for the sake of argument) that knows for certain that there is no such X, and eventually convinces everyone else in the world to stop believing in X. Now, let’s imagine that the masses can’t handle this new lack of belief, and nuclear holocaust ensues slaughtering all living things.

Now, it appears that in such a world we would be forced to say that while the statement “There is an X” is epistemically FALSE, it is ethically TRUE because of the undesirable consequences that would be brought about if it were not believed.

A bifurcation of truth-values! Ahh! WTF?!

So yeah… I think the easier option is to just say that an Appeal to Consequences is a logical fallacy in all fields (including ethics), and that consequently all consequentialist ethical theories are fallacious. Yeah?

[ww0308]

Hmm, yeah, that does make sense.

To nitpick, I'd say that "there is an X" is simply false, and it's just "we should claim there is an X" or more broadly "we should lie sometimes" that's ethically true, but your point still stands just fine.

Maybe I could harden up my ideal utopia by specifying that all the inhabitants seek truth fearlessly. That could conflict with the other goals, but the other goals are already going to be conflicting with each other and need some balancing. Truth seeking would also fix the question of what is and isn't gratuitous.

Giving up the search for truth to attain safety, comfort, and the other goals would be awful. Same goes for giving up various other values-- music, say, or painting, or romantic love. I see now that my idea of utopia is more complex than is immediately apparent, and I'm more wedded to the nice things about the world as it is than is immediately apparent, too. Three cheers for discourse increasing self-knowledge!