An appeal to consequences is an argument against saying or believing something, which addresses external consequences of saying/believing, rather than the truth of the matter. This creates a conflict between epistemic rationality and instrumental rationality (or at least, raises the possibility of such a conflict). The argument asks you to compromise the soundness of your map, for the sake of the territory. If you give in, you may be accepting a falsehood. If you refuse, you may be shooting yourself in the foot.