Philosophy 200
unwarranted assumption
Begging the Question
• This is a form of circular reasoning. Questionbegging premises are distinct from their
conclusions, but cannot be believed without
believing the conclusion.
Begging the Question
Capital Punishment is murder
Murder is wrong
Capital Punishment is wrong.
Begging the Question
Capital Punishment is murder
Murder is wrong
Capital Punishment is wrong.
This premise “begs the question” because
nobody who did not already agree with the
conclusion would agree to that premise.
Begging the Question
• Question-begging premises make an argument
useless, even if still valid (or even sound)
because the whole point of an argument is to
support a conclusion with things that are
more acceptable.
Complex (loaded) Question
• Classic example: “Have you stopped beating
your wife?”
– Any answer implies wife-beating has taken place.
Complex (loaded) Question
• Classic example: “Have you stopped beating
your wife?”
• The best way to respond to one of these is to
point out that it’s loaded and disagree with
the assumption of the question.
Accident
• Most generalizations have specific exceptions
built in.
Accident
• Most generalizations have specific exceptions
built in.
• Consider:
– Traffic laws
Accident
• Most generalizations have specific exceptions
built in.
• Consider:
– Traffic laws
– Rules like “No punching”
Accident
• Most generalizations have specific exceptions
built in.
• Consider:
– Traffic laws
– Rules like “No punching”
– Killing people is always immoral
Accident
• The fallacy of accident treats the
acknowledged exception as a disproof of the
general rule or else applies the generalization
to the acknowledged exception as if it still
applied.
Hasty/Biased Generalization
• These we covered when talking about
generalizations
• Generalizing from too few cases or nonrepresentative cases are two ways of making
poor generalizations.
False Dichotomy/Dilemma
• Is when only two options are provided that
are not actually the only options.
False Dichotomy/Dilemma
• Is when only two options are provided that
are not actually the only options.
– Pompey: “If you’re not for me, you’re against me”
– Caesar: “If you’re not against me, you’re for me”
False Dichotomy/Dilemma
• Is when only two options are provided that
are not actually the only options.
– “Either we continue to ban homosexuals from the
military or else we’ll have to let absolutely
everyone in.”
Causal Fallacies
• Remember, correlation IS NOT causation, it merely
indicates evidence of a possible causal relationship.
Causal Fallacies
• Remember, correlation IS NOT causation, it merely
indicates evidence of a possible causal relationship.
• Once we determine the explanation for the
correlation, that explanation is the causal factor.
Causal Fallacies
• Remember, correlation IS NOT causation, it merely
indicates evidence of a possible causal relationship.
• Once we determine the explanation for the
correlation, that explanation is the causal factor.
• Once one thing is correlated with another, there are
four logical possibilities:
Causal Fallacies
• Remember, correlation IS NOT causation, it merely
indicates evidence of a possible causal relationship.
• Once we determine the explanation for the
correlation, that explanation is the causal factor.
• Once one thing is correlated with another, there are
four logical possibilities:
– A is the cause of B
Causal Fallacies
• Remember, correlation IS NOT causation, it merely
indicates evidence of a possible causal relationship.
• Once we determine the explanation for the
correlation, that explanation is the causal factor.
• Once one thing is correlated with another, there are
four logical possibilities:
– A is the cause of B
– B is the cause of A
Causal Fallacies
• Remember, correlation IS NOT causation, it merely
indicates evidence of a possible causal relationship.
• Once we determine the explanation for the
correlation, that explanation is the causal factor.
• Once one thing is correlated with another, there are
four logical possibilities:
– A is the cause of B
– B is the cause of A
– Some third things causes both
Causal Fallacies
• Remember, correlation IS NOT causation, it merely
indicates evidence of a possible causal relationship.
• Once we determine the explanation for the
correlation, that explanation is the causal factor.
• Once one thing is correlated with another, there are
four logical possibilities:
–
–
–
–
A is the cause of B
B is the cause of A
Some third things causes both
The correlation is simply coincidence
Causal Fallacies
• Remember, correlation IS NOT causation, it merely
indicates evidence of a possible causal relationship.
• Once we determine the explanation for the
correlation, that explanation is the causal factor.
• Once one thing is correlated with another, there are
four logical possibilities:
–
–
–
–
A is the cause of B
B is the cause of A
Some third things causes both
The correlation is simply coincidence
Slippery Slopes
• For whatever reason, many will argue that
some action is a slippery slope to another
action without realizing that such reasoning is
fallacious.
• We will examine three kinds of slippery slope
“arguments”.
Conceptual Slippery Slope
• Ordinarily, this is perfectly acceptable reasoning, but
when it argues similarity by transitivity, it has
become a slippery slope argument, and a fallacy. A
series of insignificant differences can add up to a
significant difference.
Conceptual Slippery Slope
• This argument relies on the vagueness inherent in
language to argue that no distinction should be
made between two things because they are not all
that different.
• Ordinarily, this is perfectly acceptable reasoning, but
when it argues similarity by transitivity, it has
become a slippery slope argument, and a fallacy. A
series of insignificant differences can add up to a
significant difference.
Fairness Slippery Slopes
• Otherwise known as a line-drawing fallacy.
Fairness Slippery Slopes
• Otherwise known as a line-drawing fallacy.
• Where to draw a line can be a legitimately
argued point, but where the argument form
turns fallacious is when one argues because
there is controversy on where to draw a line,
no line must be drawn.
Causal Slippery Slopes
• These are the most common variety.
• These are often called ‘snowball’ or ‘domino’
arguments.
Causal Slippery Slopes
• These are the most common variety.
• These are often called ‘snowball’ or ‘domino’
arguments.
• When a clear and likely means of causation is
described in each step of such an argument, it isn’t
known as a slippery slope argument, but instead a
chain argument (which is valid).
Causal Slippery Slopes
• These are the most common variety.
• These are often called ‘snowball’ or ‘domino’
arguments.
• When a clear and likely means of causation is
described in each step of such an argument, it isn’t
known as a slippery slope argument, but instead a
chain argument (which is valid).
• When causality is badly misunderstood, the
argument becomes a fallacy.
Example: militarism
• Consider: “If we invade Iraq, after having invaded
Afghanistan, then it will only be a matter of time
before we invade Iran, then the rest of the middle
east, and then the US will be locked into a holy war
with the entire Islamic world.”
Example: militarism
• Consider: “If we invade Iraq, after having invaded
Afghanistan, then it will only be a matter of time
before we invade Iran, then the rest of the middle
east, and then the US will be locked into a holy war
with the entire Islamic world.”
• This argument is fallacious in that it badly
misrepresents causality. It relies on previous
decisions causing future ones, which is generally not
the case, and also consider why the actual argument
didn’t in fact happen, in spite of the antecedent
conditions occuring.