Entry 2203, on 2022-02-09 at 11:26:19 (Rating 2, Philosophy)
As a skeptic I am very aware of the classic informal logical fallacies. These are potential errors in reasoning which aren't strictly rules like there are in formal logic, but are guidelines for debating in a rational way. For example, a common fallacy of this type is the "ad hominem". This is where a person argues against a a person's character rather than what they're saying.
For example, If Hitler said tomorrow is Tuesday, you might say "it can't be, because I can't trust what Hitler says." Clearly, that is a problem, because it could easily be Tuesday, and there's no reason why Hitler should not know this. So saying "tomorrow can't be Tuesday because Hitler said it is" is a fallacy.
But what if Hitler said "We must exterminate the Jews, because they are evil." We know Hitler wants to use the Jews for his political purposes, and is a violent tyrant, so we might have very good reason to reject that statement (the bit about Jews being evil) just based on who said it. So in that case, we might say that we can reasonably use an ad hominem.
Another common fallacy is the "slippery slope" or "thin end of the wedge". These state that an initial, relatively mild action can be rejected because it will lead to far more harmful events once it escalates, as it inevitably will. But many benign actions never escalate to something harmful, and an action shouldn't normally be rejected because of that.
But if Hitler said "we will station a whole lot of panzers at the border with Poland, but don't worry, we won't invade." We could rightly say that no, the tanks being taken there is just the start of a slippery slope (or the thin end of the wedge), and they will inevitably be used in an invasion. We should stop this now. In this case a slippery slope is a fair argument.
So you can see that calling someone out on an informal logical fallacy is OK, but that type of fallacy, in itself, is not a reason to reject their opinion. There's even a fallacy which covers incorrectly using a fallacy. It's called the fallacy fallacy. So thin end of the wedge and slippery slope (which I will treat as being about the same) arguments are often correct, although it would be preferable to use different supporting logic.
Anyway, the thin end of the wedge I want to talk about here is the response to COVID. When this all began, a couple of years back, I noticed government (and other institutions) activities were relatively mild, but could easily escalate to something far more pernicious. It sounded like a slippery slope argument (and therefore probably a fallacy), but it really wasn't.
For example, we were told we would need a vaccination, but it would not be compulsory. Now we are being told to get our third, compulsory dose of the vaccine, in just a few months. I know that technically it isn't compulsory, but if you don't get vaccinated you can't really participate in society, so it might as well be. And where will this end? If you think three will be enough, you might be being naive. If you think vaccination won't be necessary for more, rather than less, events in the future, again you are probably being naive.
And what about masks? They started as any type of face covering being recommended for various situations. Then masks of some sort became mandatory in some situations, then more situations were added, now not only has it spread, but the type of mask you are required to use has become far more specific, and these are definitely compulsory.
In some organisations there are quite draconian rules in place for masks, including the recommendation to call security if a person fails to comply. Sounds like that "thin end" has got pretty thick quite quickly!
The reaction to alternative views has also escalated into the more extreme. Initially we were asked to be kind to everyone, and not judge non-mask wearers or the unvaccinated. Now people who don't follow the exact "guidelines" or even if they simply offer alternative opinions are ridiculed, silenced, and fired. In other words, cancel culture has been applied as a weapon against people who fail to fully comply with increasingly harsh rules.
There are even some individuals who think the idea of lockdowns could be extended to cover other controversial societal problems, for example climate change. Once an idea, no matter how problematic it is, gains some acceptance, it is very difficult to eliminate it from the set of tools various regimes may want to utilise.
We generally expect society to become more free over time, but recently the opposite seems to be happening. This is primarily because of two factors: the left becoming increasingly demanding in their actions, and COVID being used as a justification for removing freedoms. Some examples of the use of new hate speech laws are truly concerning.
Small changes have been sneaked in over time, often in response to events most people are quite horrified by, but that is really just an excuse to impose greater control over people's thoughts. For example, the Christchurch mosque shooting is being used as an excuse to impose tighter control over criticising religions here in New Zealand. I have a very good idea which religion it will be illegal to criticise too: the one which deserves the most criticism!
We need to be very aware of this problem. It's the old "frog in boiling water" problem; as the water temperature slowly increases the frog doesn't notice until he is boiled alive. Is that what we want? Sometimes the slope really is slippery!
Comment 1 (7087) by Anonymous on 2022-02-10 at 10:33:36:
Utterly disingenuous. "technically it isn't compulsory " The vaccine is not compulsory, but there are consequences if you choose to remain unvaccinated.
Your argument only has weight if the environment or context remained constant throughout the "escalation". For example, if subsequent research revealed that mask wearing was even more effective at preventing spread, then it makes sense for the position on mask requirements to change.
Your thin end of the wedge argument is too simplistic and doesn't capture the complexities and change inherent in a global pandemic cause by a constantly mutating virus.
Comment 2 (7088) by OJB on 2022-02-10 at 17:48:43:
I'm pretty sick of this silly "consequences" argument, to be honest. Here's how I counter it: 1930s Germany. You could be a Jew if you wanted to, but there were consequences!
Yes, I agree that some flexibility is necessary in these cases, but most of the rules just get more draconian and unnecessarily limiting. And whatever the excuse is, the "slippery slope" argument still applies.
Comment 3 (7089) by Anonymous on 2022-02-11 at 10:00:33:
"You could be a Jew if you wanted to, but there were consequences " Silly, lazy argument - it's a lot harder to change your ethnicity/religious alignment than get a vaccination. Don't pretend that these are of similar magnitude.
No, it doesn't apply. Your slippery slope has become a grippy slope in regards to lockdowns. The restrictions imposed by lockdowns are largely gone. It's not a slippery slope, but a decidedly easier to traverse slope in this regard. Things change. Policies adapt.
Comment 4 (7090) by OJB on 2022-02-11 at 14:25:10:
Can you not see that the "consequences" are not some natural and undisputed part of the original action. They are penalties, deliberately created by one group to repress the actions of another. Do you think it is OK for JK Rowling to be cancelled (the consequence) because she spoke some truths about the effects of allowing trans women (who were men) to be treated as women? The consequence of saying something another person disagrees with is to have a fair debate and establish the truth, not try to destroy someone's life. I used an extreme (Nazi) example to try to make my point obvious; does this lesser one make it any clearer?
Comment 5 (7091) by Anonymous on 2022-02-11 at 15:24:30:
Try not to mistake disagreement for a failure to understand your argument. Citing the Nazis is so easy and not really helpful in any real way.
Whether consequences are natural or artificial is irrelevant. Every day people make decisions knowing the outcomes (potential or assured). So what? What makes this decision any different from, for example, speeding in a 50km/h zone and accepting the risk of receiving a ticket. Society has deemed that speeding is generally undesirable, and a penalty has been attached to that behaviour. The speeding case also has a natural consequence of making he deliver less likely to survive a serious accident. natural - artificial - so what?
While you mention it, JK Rowling being "cancelled" is wrong (if indeed it happened). But that doesn't mean you are right when talking about covid restrictions. You can't lump everything together like that calming the principal is the same, when it's the context and detail that matter.
Comment 6 (7092) by OJB on 2022-02-11 at 16:04:30:
OK, all I want you to admit is that it is not justifiable to punish people for actions they take because they should have realised there would be consequences, if those consequences are unreasonable. There may be situations where the consequences justify the action. For example, it might be OK to fine someone for driving too fast. But in other cases the consequences cannot be justified. Since those cases exist, it is too simplistic to say someone deserves the consequences of their actions.
So, instead of saying "there are consequences if you choose to remain unvaccinated" we should ask "are the consequences of being unvaccinated justified?"
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE