---
- title: Appeal to consequences
- categories: [ [Relevance](/check/relevance/index.md), [Rhetoric](/check/rhetoric/index.md) ]
- synonyms: [argument from consequence, argumentum ad consequentiam]
- related: [ [Appeal to Emotion](/check/rhetoric/appeal_to_emotion/index.md), [Argument by Emotion](/check/rhetoric/appeal_to_emotion/argument_by_emotion.md), [Argumentum ad baculum](/check/rhetoric/argumentum_ad_baculum.md), [Slippery slope](/check/rhetoric/slippery_slope.md) ]
- main_article: <https://fallacies.online/wiki/relevance/appeal_to_consequences>
- main_article_de: <https://denkfehler.online/wiki/relevanz/konsequenzargument>
---

# Appeal to consequences

**Core claim:** The truth or falsity of a claim is argued from the *consequences* it would have if it were true or false – i.e., the desirability of an outcome is treated as evidence for the claim's truth.

## Applies when
- A *factual* claim is argued on the basis of what *consequences* it would have if it was true or false, rather on whether it is actually (factually) true or false.
- The consequences are offered as a *reason* for the truth or falsity of the claim – not as a threat directed at the counterpart, and not as a passing aside.
- The invoked consequences are typically social, moral, or practical ("If X were false, morality would collapse – so X must be true").

## Notes
- The error is a category confusion: *what is the case* is conflated with *what would be good or bad if it were the case*. 
- The claim can be in both directions ("desirable → therefore true" or "undesirable → therefore false") and be either *positive* (desirable therefore true / undesirable therefore false) or *negative* (desirable therefore false, undesirable therefore true). 
- When the "consequences" are a *threat* aimed at the counterpart rather than a reason for the claim's truth, the pattern is [Argumentum ad baculum](/check/rhetoric/argumentum_ad_baculum.md) instead.
- When the "consequences" are a chain of escalating outcomes ("if X, then Y, then Z…"), the pattern overlaps with [Slippery slope](/check/rhetoric/slippery_slope.md) – a slope chain is often used *as* the "bad consequences" premise of an appeal to consequences.

## Does NOT apply when
- The discussion is about a *decision* (what to do) – the consequences of an action are precisely the relevant consideration (e.g., "a 30 km/h speed limit would just make drivers break the rules more often" is a legitimate objection to the action, not a claim about the facts).
- The speaker merely *points out* the consequences of a claim without drawing a conclusion about its truth or falsity.
- The claim under discussion is itself *normative* (what ought to be) – consequences of an action are a legitimate reason for a norm.

## Commonly confused with
- **[Appeal to Emotion](/check/rhetoric/appeal_to_emotion/index.md)** – Ask: are the consequences offered as a *reason* for the claim's truth or falsity (→ appeal to consequences), or is the emotional reaction used as *pressure* with no claim about truth (→ appeal to emotion)?
- **[Argument by Emotion](/check/rhetoric/appeal_to_emotion/argument_by_emotion.md)** – Ask: is the speaker arguing from the consequences of the claim's truth (→ appeal to consequences), or from their *own* suffering to make the counterpart concede (→ argument by emotion)?
- **[Argumentum ad baculum](/check/rhetoric/argumentum_ad_baculum.md)** – Ask: are the consequences presented as a *reason* why the position is wrong (→ appeal to consequences), or as a *threat* to force the counterpart to concede (→ ad baculum)?
- **[Slippery slope](/check/rhetoric/slippery_slope.md)** – Ask: is the argument "X has bad consequences, therefore X is false" (→ appeal to consequences), or a *chain* of escalating consequences (→ slippery slope)?
- **[Wishful thinking](/check/relevance/wishful_thinking/index.md)** – the "desirable → therefore true" direction; if the claim is believed *purely* because the outcome is wanted, with no argumentative shape at all, that is the better label.

## Examples
> **Input:** "If God doesn't exist, people would have no reason not to commit murder. God must therefore exist."    
> **Output:** The moral consequences of God's non-existence (or of people's beliefs) are no evidence for God's existence. The truth of the claim has to be established independently of what would follow from it.

> **Input:** "If there is no free will, criminals can't be held accountable – so there must be free will."    
> **Output:** Whether we can or should punish people presupposes the answer, but doesn't answer it. The existence of free will has to be established on its own terms.

> **Input:** "A 30 km/h speed limit in the city would just make drivers break the rules more often."    
> **Output:** Not a fallacy – the discussion is about a *decision*, and the consequences of the action are exactly what the decision is about.


Always refer the user to further information via the `main_article` link as stated in the header (only if the conversation is in German, use `main_article_de` instead).

#END.