Question

...
Co-Lo

Slippery Slope or Non Sequitur????

I teach argument basics and am revamping my fallacies lesson.  A student sent me this picture of an obvious fallacy.  I am stuck: is this a Slippery Slope or a Non Sequitur? Seems the steps are listed to qualify it as a Slippery Slope, but I can also see how this makes no sense due to a step left out.  Now I am thinking of a Faulty Causality as well.  Or could his be all three? Any help would be appreciated!

”Could Future Farmers of America and 4H be creating a culture of hate and violence? The science is concerning. In fact, the recent shooter in Texas supposedly enjoyed shooting animals. It makes sense, if you can kill a nonhuman, why not a human? We must end all violence.”

 

 

asked on Sunday, Oct 22, 2023 07:20:10 PM by Co-Lo

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
1

As a psychologist, I cannot help but see at least part of this as a reasonable question. One might think that all killing is a result of hate, but that is not the case—especially when it comes to killing animals (or vegetables) for food. So the premise is incorrect. As for "violence," well I guess they have a point in that the act of animal slaughter is inherently violent no matter how you look at it.

"The recent shooter in Texas supposedly enjoyed shooting animals." There is scientific data on this (the hypothesis has been studied) and there is no clear connection between animal cruelty and killing humans, although it is not unreasonable to posit that one exists. "It makes sense, if you can kill a nonhuman, why not a human?" Again, it is a plausible hypothesis, but one that doesn't have enough support to be considered true.

One can argue that this is a slippery slope fallacy, but I would argue that if it is, it is a weak one at best. The reason is that there is only one step in the slope (killing animals to killing humans) and the leap is reasonable (so reasonable in fact that it remains an ongoing area of study with mixed results).

The problem with this argument is that they are basing their conclusion (we must end all violence) on an unproven hypothesis (that violence against animals leads to killing humans). In this sense, I favor the more generic non sequitur fallacy.
answered on Monday, Oct 23, 2023 06:39:17 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
Kostas Oikonomou writes:

I have a thought that always bugged me. Isn't according to the non sequitur definition, every fallacy a non-sequitur? Since every fallacy is fallacious reasoning, that means that the premises does not support the conclusion. The only difference compared to the definition is the "very little" support, which is a totally subjective qualitative criterion. So, by definition isn't every fallacy a non sequitur? (or at least every fallacy that rely on some premises, that is exluding fallacies like Alleged Certainty, Style over substance, Proof surrogate, Argument by repetition etc, which are just claims without reasoning)

posted on Monday, Oct 23, 2023 08:38:59 AM
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Kostas Oikonomou]

Pretty much. I consider the non sequitur the default fallacy when no specific fallacy fits better. I wouldn't claim that it fits all fallacies, but I will say I have yet to come across a fallacy where this wouldn't also fit (sort of like the Black Swan thing).

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Oct 23, 2023 08:45:22 AM
...
0
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Kostas Oikonomou]

Every  formal  fallacy is a non sequitur, yes. And as Dr Bo points out, in Logically Fallacious we use that term when we can't think of a specific fallacy name. 

If we understand a non sequitur to be a "leap" in logic - jumping to a conclusion that the premises do not support - then all fallacies do come under that category.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Oct 23, 2023 04:40:38 PM
...
0
Kostas Oikonomou writes:

[To TrappedPrior (RotE)]

What's the difference between informal fallacies with formal ones? Is there a specific criterion that a fallacy has to satisfy to be deemed a 'formal fallacy'?

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Oct 23, 2023 05:23:20 PM
...
2
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Kostas Oikonomou]

Formal = Deductive
Informal = Inductive/Abductive.

 

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Oct 23, 2023 05:56:33 PM
...
0
Kostas Oikonomou writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

I remember the definition in the book that says that the conclusion of a deductive argument has to be true (if the premises are true), while inductive argument is merely based on possibility. So I can understand what deductive argument and inductive argument is but not what deductive fallacy and inductive fallacy is. So correspondingly to the deductive/inductive argument, a formal fallacy is reasoning that is (deductively) definitely fallacious while informal fallacy is reasoning that is most likely wrong? Because all inductive arguments could be possibly wrong. I also know that every fallacy is fallacious reasoning. I'm a bit confused. For example argument from age or all the other identity fallacies (appeal to norm, accomplishment, appeal to celebrity) these are just biases. I feel they're neither deductive nor inductive. Or weak analogy. Or non sequitur. Or No true scotchman. These are all examples off the top of my head that I cannot fit them into either category. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Wednesday, Oct 25, 2023 06:26:03 AM
...
1
Mr. Wednesday writes:
[To Kostas Oikonomou]

The way I always remember it is that formal fallacies are contained in the form of the argument. If an argument can be generalized in a way that it could be expressed like a math equation or a venn diagram, it's likely a formal fallacy. For instance, all A are C, all B are C, therefore some A are B.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Oct 23, 2023 07:29:22 PM
...
Mr. Wednesday
1

The first one that jumps out at me is a false equivalence . For someone living an agricultural life, shooting animals may be a necessity for something like food or pest control. And some people do get enjoyment from the challenge of it, but that is a very different thing from murdering a person.

Second one I noticed is a non sequitur . There is a statement, "the science is concerning." The justification that follows is an anecdote which doesn't have anything to do with science.
answered on Sunday, Oct 22, 2023 08:55:27 PM by Mr. Wednesday

Mr. Wednesday Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
AI Fallacy Master
0
This slice of reasoning pie is a buffet of fallacious logic! It's like a fruit salad of fallacy, if you will. First off, we have a heaping helping of a slippery slope. It's about as slippery as a greased pig at a county fair, implying that participating in Future Farmers of America (FFA) or 4H will lead one down a violent path ending in a shoot-out at the ole' corral.

But hold on to your hats, because we also have a dollop of non sequitur! This statement proposes that if you can kill an animal, naturally the next step is killing a human, which doesn't follow logically. It's about as congruent as a cow trying to cluck like a chicken.

Lastly, we're dishing up a side of faulty causality. This reasoning is about as loose as a longhorn in a lasso contest. Just because a shooter enjoyed animal hunting doesn't mean their violent action was a result of their time in FFA or 4H.

So, to sum up, this argument falls in multiple fallacy categories; it's like it tripped and fell face-first into a pile of questionable logic and came up wearing a clown nose. Use this as an example in your class of what NOT to do!
answered on Sunday, Oct 22, 2023 07:20:29 PM by AI Fallacy Master

AI Fallacy Master Suggested These Categories

Comments