Appeal to Consequences
As I was looking around the internet today (as I chaotically do from time to time), I rediscovered the Appeal to Consequences, that is, the assertion that some statement must be true or false because the alternative would lead to worse results. This is a logical fallacy which particularly plagues me, in part because it is antithetical to the way I personally operate. If some possibility has particularly wonderful or disastrous consequences, it seems to me that that is the best reason to investigate it further. To simply assume that the far better possibility must be true, out of wishful thinking or fear or what have you, is baffling to me. On an intellectual level I know that people do it, and that it makes them feel better about their lives. But on an empathetic level I have difficulty imagining what that must be like, and that's really the frustration I have.
I suppose there are other ways in which this sort of fallacy bothers me. There's a lot of conservative rhetoric that hinges around this misstep, usually related to authority or tradition. (If the authority in question is wrong, than a) we've been doing things wrong, and b) we may find ourselves lost if we can't trust the authority. Since these possibilities seem really bad, we must trust the authority.) If you go one step further, and let the fallacy become completely unconscious, you get people who will reject a reality as false because they just feel really badly about it, even when they can't identify why. Often this is a sign of just the opposite; they do not want to be wrong, and so a more sensible conception of things seems abhorrent. This also seems like the source of a lot of feel-good statements to me (particularly about extreme equality). "Anyone can find greatness if they set their mind to it," sounds to me like "I don't want to have to face a reality where hard-working people never achieve their dreams." "Everyone has their own truth" sounds to me like "I don't want to face a reality in which some people are just objectively, mind-bogglingly wrong about things that are important to them, and they might one day painfully realize it."
Now I do realize that knowing the consequences of a thing can be important. If you don't know whether or not A is true, but you do have a good idea of what you should do assuming that it is, it may be good to prepare for that contingency. And if you have little hope of determining whether or not A is true and little influence over the consequences either way, but you'd feel much better if it is true, why not believe A? The white lie can't hurt you, and may have a good chance of not being a lie after all.
But to me, if I even smell for a moment that I've done this accidentally, that maybe I've just started denying or even just ignoring an important part of reality because I don't like it very much, it sets off a dozen alarm bells in my head. It's strange to me that something so completely integral to the standards I've set for myself doesn't seem to be a big deal for other people. Perhaps it's not in human nature to place "What is happening?" before "Do I like it?"
I suppose there are other ways in which this sort of fallacy bothers me. There's a lot of conservative rhetoric that hinges around this misstep, usually related to authority or tradition. (If the authority in question is wrong, than a) we've been doing things wrong, and b) we may find ourselves lost if we can't trust the authority. Since these possibilities seem really bad, we must trust the authority.) If you go one step further, and let the fallacy become completely unconscious, you get people who will reject a reality as false because they just feel really badly about it, even when they can't identify why. Often this is a sign of just the opposite; they do not want to be wrong, and so a more sensible conception of things seems abhorrent. This also seems like the source of a lot of feel-good statements to me (particularly about extreme equality). "Anyone can find greatness if they set their mind to it," sounds to me like "I don't want to have to face a reality where hard-working people never achieve their dreams." "Everyone has their own truth" sounds to me like "I don't want to face a reality in which some people are just objectively, mind-bogglingly wrong about things that are important to them, and they might one day painfully realize it."
Now I do realize that knowing the consequences of a thing can be important. If you don't know whether or not A is true, but you do have a good idea of what you should do assuming that it is, it may be good to prepare for that contingency. And if you have little hope of determining whether or not A is true and little influence over the consequences either way, but you'd feel much better if it is true, why not believe A? The white lie can't hurt you, and may have a good chance of not being a lie after all.
But to me, if I even smell for a moment that I've done this accidentally, that maybe I've just started denying or even just ignoring an important part of reality because I don't like it very much, it sets off a dozen alarm bells in my head. It's strange to me that something so completely integral to the standards I've set for myself doesn't seem to be a big deal for other people. Perhaps it's not in human nature to place "What is happening?" before "Do I like it?"