Argumentum ad baculum

You press someone to accept a claim by making clear what will happen to them if they refuse. The argument works because the harm that follows disagreement gives the hearer a motive to stop objecting, whatever they think of the claim. It can be attacked by pointing to the gap between motive and evidence: a threat gives a reason to say yes, but no reason to believe.

Example

We have a right to these territories; our victorious armies will demonstrate this forcefully if you insist upon disputing our rights

Standardised form

“We have a right to these territories” (q) is acceptable (A) because “we have a right to these territories” (q) will be demonstrated forcefully if you insist upon disputing our rights (Z).

Transformations applied: the semicolon replaced by “because”; anaphora resolved — “this” replaced by “we have a right to these territories”; the claim’s acceptability made explicit as the conclusion-predicate.

Classification

The conclusion is referred to as a whole in the premise, so the argument form is delta (q is A because q is Z).

The premise attributes the conclusion to the addressee, so the argument substance is II.

The keyword NEGATIVE MOTIVATION describes the relationship between predicates Z and A. The argument lever can thus be formulated as “Being demonstrated forcefully if you insist upon disputing our rights (Z) is a NEGATIVE MOTIVATION for being acceptable (A)”.

Not to be confused with

• Argumentum ad carotam — The mirror image: a promised benefit instead of a threatened harm. OFFERED REWARD
• Argumentum ad hominem — Also addressed to the second person, but it attacks the claim through the character of its source. CHARACTERALLY AUTHORITATIVE, U
• Ethotic argument — The premise points at the arguer themselves and offers their reputation. I
• Argument from expert opinion — The premise names a third party’s knowledge, not a consequence for the hearer. III

Source

Werkmeister (1948, p. 63), quoted in Walton, D.N. (2000), Scare Tactics. Dordrecht: Springer.

Notes

This argument is also known as the “appeal to the stick”.