Argumentum ad consequentiam claims a statement is false (or true) only because of the consequences of accepting it. Consequences matter for decisions, but they do not determine factual truth.
Example
“Climate change cannot be serious, because that would force us to change the economy.”
(The consequences do not decide whether the fact is true.)
Applied example (political)
“If we accept this data, the government will have to change its plan, so it must be false.”
(Convenience does not define truth.)
Applied example (mystical)
“If this practice were false, many people would lose hope, so it cannot be false.”
(Desire does not validate the claim.)
Why it is fallacious
- It mixes descriptive facts with normative preferences.
- It uses desire (or fear) as a truth criterion.
- It avoids evidence because the result is uncomfortable.
How to spot it
- “If it were true, it would be terrible, so it is not true.”
- Arguments based on convenience rather than data.
- Rejection of a fact because it has social or political costs.
How to respond
- Separate facts from decisions: “What we do” is not “what is”.
- Ask for empirical evidence of the claim.
- Accept the fact first, then debate implications.