Lecture Notes by Christopher Lay

Los Angeles Pierce College

Department of History, Philosophy, and Sociology

 

 

 

 

Mathew Van Cleave's 2016 Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

 

https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/BookDetail.aspx?bookId=457

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4 "Informal fallacies", § 2 "Slippery Slope Fallacies," Sub-§ 2 "Causal Slippery Slope Fallacy"

"The causal slippery slope fallacy is committed when one event is said to lead to some other (usually disastrous) event via a chain of intermediary events." 

 

"A causal slippery slope fallacy is committed when one assumes that just because each individual conditional statement is probable, the conditional that links the first event to the last event is also probable." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Link

"Even if we grant that each 'link' in the chain is individually probable, it doesn’t follow that the whole chain (or the conditional that links the first event to the last event) is probable." 

 

"[I]n a causal slippery slope fallacy, the link between each event is probabilistic. It is the fact that each link is probabilistic that accounts for the fallacy." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example

Is this a fallacy?  Either way, explain why or why not. 

Student: I had a death in the family.  As you know, the individual I speak of was quite famous, and the obituary is famous now too.  May I turn my essay in on Sunday night instead of Friday night? 

Professor:  I'm sorry to hear that.  But if I let you turn in your essay late, I will have to let everyone turn in their essays late.  But if I let everyone turn in their essays late, you know that some people will turn their essays in years late.  If students are able to turn their essays in years late, then the whole point of turning in assignments is lost, and ultimately higher education will be meaningless.  You don't want your degree to be meaningless, do you?  Your answer should be no, an so is mine. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example

Is this a fallacy?  Either way, explain why or why not. 

Machine guns in schools are a bad idea.  If you do not want machine guns in schools, you should not let students watch things like Elmo's World.  Seriously.  If parents actually paid attention to Elmo's World (something that Elmo's World was designed to repel), parents would quickly notice a seemingly innocent normalization of violence.  Consider Elmo's violent relationship with the drawer, or the fact that Mr. Noodle only responds to yelling.  Once this type of violence is normalized, especially in the minds of young children, then more complex forms of violence are much easier to accept, even when conveyed by improbably armed turtles.  Once adolescents are able to accept turtles capable of the martial arts who use violence as a way to satisfy themselves, obvious and explicit forms of fantasy violence become equally accepted, such as the poorly named Call of Duty.  Once we humans learn how to satisfy ourselves by watching depictions of violence or by playing these games, we are in serious trouble.  When violence results in the satisfaction of our most basic drives, we distance ourselves the satisfaction that comes with peace–and peace is far more satisfactory that violence.  A society that produces people who satisfy themselves with Elmo's World, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Mortal Combat is a society that produces people who satisfy themselves by bringing machine guns to schools.