Argumentum ad Baculum - The "Might Makes Right" Fallacy
Directly translated as "to the stick," this fallacy is a threat that says: "If you don't agree, I'll hit with you with a stick!"
Arguers who use the argumentum ad baculum fallacy are not using logic. In fact, they've given up on logic and actually appear to be desperate to get their way regardless. Or, they are incredibly powerful, know it, and can't be bothered to have a real debate with you.
While some threats are not very subtle ("Vote for Candidate X, or I'll break your legs!"), others are a little trickier to detect. Often, the threats aren't necessarily physical... they can involve social humiliation, loss of employment, blackmail, etc.
Ultimately, all uses of ad baculum use fear and intimidation in place of having a logical debate about the topic.
Yes, it kills me a little inside seeing how they've misused "you're" on the YouTube video's title.
"Click It or Ticket" Campaign
This public safety advertisement generally ignores the logical explanation that wearing a safety belt will lead to an increased chance of survival in a car crash. Instead, the ad simply threatens the viewer with having to pay a hefty fine if they aren't strapped in and their friendly neighborhood police officer sees them.
I admire their goal (fewer deaths on roadways). Perhaps they assume that the viewers are already well-acquainted with the common-sense logic and a threat will effectively help them help people. Is accomplishing their benevolent goal by any means necessary acceptable?
"An Offer He Couldn't Refuse"
Perhaps, Vito Corleone in The Godfather made one of the most famous uses of argumentum ad baculum in history. In the end, the film director he threatened agreed to cast Vito's godson, Al Martino, as the lead in his upcoming film. The director's decision was not based on Martino being the best actor for the job. The threat of death took logic off the table.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."
U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt famously said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." Truthfully, if one does indeed "have a big stick" (literally or metaphorically speaking) and can back up threats, then this approach can get the results one is seeking. With that said, Roosevelt is not talking about logic or seeking truth. Threatening anyone with a stick ignores logic.
Many developing nations will do what a powerful country demands because they fear F-16 fighter jets, nuclear bombs, and/or financial sanctions. Those are mighty big sticks.
Punishment
In general, when we punish children (or even adults), the wrongdoing isn't being addressed logically.
For example, logically, one might say: "You should not tease your little sister because it hurts her feelings and can make her sad. It's not nice to make her sad."
But, often, parents resort to spanking, which essentially says: "You should not tease your sister because you will be spanked if you do." That's appealing to fear, not logic.
Does it work? As far as changing behavior? Maybe.
As far as teaching a true, meaningful lesson free of trauma? Doubtful.
