Posted: Nov 01, 2018 9:19 am
hackenslash wrote:Of course we do, but to argue that something is the case because of the consequences is always a fallacy, specifically a fallacy of relevance. The projected consequences of a statement being true has no bearing on the truth of the statement.
Sorry to wander OT a bit, but does it depend at all on the formulation of the statement?
For instance, we often hear arguments from theists along the lines of 'If God didn't exist, the universe would be meaningless and awful" - with an implied "therefore God exists'.
Clearly fallacious, but how about:
"I ought not to pig out on cake, because if I do, I'll get fat."
The first is obviously fallacious, but the second, not so much. The statement 'I ought not to' is superficially true because of its consequences.
Can you help me parse the difference?