'Appeals to consequences' as used by Quinn are a fallacy because the decisions rest on the desirability and emotional judgement of the consequence. That's an ob

'Appeals to consequences' as used by Quinn are a fallacy because the decisions rest on the desirability and emotional judgement of the consequence. That's an obvious fallacy we can agree in the context of business. There are more ways to evaluate consequences than their emotional viability. Taking a teological stance or a protection from death stance can lead to nailing the puppy charity to the wall on exactly how much of a lie is necessary to prevent death of puppies, the truth, people's bank accounts and the charity itself. Using the appeal to consequences fallacy to disregard an entire category of philosophical thought is a bit silly.