Shortcuts

Connect with us on Facebook!
Subscribe.
[Feeds & Readers]
Follow us on Twitter!

Make us your home page!
Authors, sign in!

« Tom Hayden on democracy and social change | Main | To Loose the Chains of Injustice »


THE LOGIC OF LINDSEY GRAHAM AND THE N.R.A.

By Peter Herbert
December 20, 2012

It was gratifying to see Jon Stewart visit the topic of logic on last Thursday’s Daily Show. I would have blogged about it sooner if I could have. Logic is a topic we too often ignore in this country; yet a little attention to it could enormously improve our public political discourse.

The context of Stewart’s foray into logic was as follows. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham gave a common conservative argument against gay marriage, that it would open the door to three-person marriage, person-animal marriage, and things like that. Stewart accused Graham of committing the slippery slope fallacy (a common reasoning error). Graham’s friends countered that his argument was an argumentum reductio ad absurdum, a valid argument form highly respected in mathematics and philosophy. Despite all that impressive Latin, Stewart won this round of amateur logic hour, not only in the eyes of his audience, but really.

Graham’s friends are right that his argument can be put in reductio ad absurdum form. As impressive as that sounds, it’s not. Although many great, important arguments take that form, so can any number of stupid, unsound arguments. The problem with Graham’s argument is not its form but its content. It absolutely depends on the claim that

If we should allow gay marriage, then we should allow three-person marriage, person-animal marriage, etc.
It is this claim that Stewart accuses of the slippery slope fallacy, and he makes a fair case for that. Not as good as could be made; but not bad. He points out that some people are born so that their equal right to true happiness depends on their ability to gay marry; but no one is born so that his equal right to true happiness depends on his ability to three-person marry or person-animal marry.

The slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone argues that some apparently acceptable claim or policy must lead inexorably towards some unacceptable one, when it is not true that it must. A classic example is the NRA favorite: if we restrict private possession of semi-automatic military weapons with thirty-round clips, then next the government will take away our ordinary hunting rifles and shotguns, and the right to bear arms will disappear altogether. The false idea behind this is that there is no principled way to justify restricting private possession of any guns without banning private possession of all guns. Of course there is. We already do it. You can’t buy an ICBM but you can buy a Beretta 9mm pistol. We can draw the line anywhere we like. For instance, we can draw it where Senator Diane Feinstein has always proposed, requiring background checks for all gun sales and banning semi-automatic long-arms with folding stocks and magazines that hold more than ten rounds. I would go farther than that; but Feinstein’s view represents a principled compromise that proves the NRA’s favorite argument is a slippery slope fallacy.

(Incidentally, If we had kept Feinstein’s assault rifle ban, which George W. Bush allowed to expire in 2004, at the NRA’s insistence, and Presidential Candidate Barach Obama promised in 2008 to reinstate if he became president, bud didn’t, then apparently there would have been fewer dead elementary school children in Newtown, CT on Friday. Also, it seems worth mentioning that eight children die from gun violence every day in America. What was special about Friday was only that we got two and one-half days worth of children shot dead in just a few minutes.)

Although Jon Stewart deserves a higher grade in introductory logic than Lindsey Graham, his case that Graham commits the slippery slope fallacy can be improved upon. I doubt that anyone’s true happiness depends on his ability to three-person marry or person-animal marry; but I do not know that for certain. What I can say for certain is that animals cannot give informed consent to marry. That is a principled difference that stops the second part of Graham’s slippery slope. It may also stop the first. I doubt that all parties can be said to frequently give full consent to polygamous marriages. Even if all parties do sometimes give full consent in polygamous marriages, they claim an unequal right. The claim now before us is that same-sex couples deserve an equal right to marry with opposite-sex couples. That claim is more equal, since it involves couples in every case, than the claims of polygamists. Whether it is ultimately a strong claim depends on the case against polygamy, not the case against same-sex marriage.

Returning for a moment to the NRA and the gun lobby, I cannot be the only one who has noticed that some of them go out of their way to try to redefine what is a hunting weapon. Although there are still successful hunters who use bows and arrows or Kentucky long rifles, the NRA faithful go out hunting with modified handguns and assault weapons, for the sole purpose of proving that those are hunting weapons because they can hunt with them. Of course those weapons work for hunting. When I was in the Army I saw deer and wild cows hit, and turned inside out, by 120mm sabot rounds shot from the main guns of M1 Abram tanks, and then vultures shot off of the deer or cow carcasses with the tanks’ 240 coaxial machine guns . That you can kill animals with a weapon is not proof that it is a hunting weapon. I wonder if those same NRA folks who go out to kill deer with handguns and assault rifles will now start taking multiple wives, or marrying animals, in order to defend Graham’s stupid slippery-slope argument against gay marriage.


Post your own comment

(To create links here or for style, you may wish to use HTML tags in your comments)


Our sponsors help us stay online to serve you. Thank you for doing your part! By using the specific links below to start any of your online shopping, you are making a tremendous difference. By using the links below, you are directly helping to support this community website:

Want to browse more blogs? Try our table of contents to find articles under specific topics or headings. Or you might find interesting entries by looking through the complete archives too. Stay around awhile. We're glad you're here.


Browse the Blogs!

You are here!

This page contains only one entry posted to Everyday Citizen on December 20, 2012 10:18 AM.

The blog post previous to it is titled "Tom Hayden on democracy and social change"

The post that follows this one is titled "To Loose the Chains of Injustice"

Want to explore this site more?

Many more blog posts can be found on our Front Page or within our complete Archives.

Does a particular subject interest you?

You can easily search for blog posts under a specific topic by using our List of Categories.

Visit our friends!

Books You Might Like!

Notices & Policies

All of the Everyday Citizen authors are delighted you are here. We all hope that you come back often, leave us comments, and become an active part of our community. Welcome!

All of our contributing authors are credentialed by invitation only from the editor/publisher of EverydayCitizen.com. If you are visiting and are interested in writing here, please feel free to let us know.

For complete site policies, including privacy, see our Frequently Asked Questions. This site is designed, maintained, and owned by its publisher, Everyday Citizen Media. EverydayCitizen.com, The Everyday Citizen, everydaycitizens.com, and Everyday Citizen are trademarked names.

Each of the authors here retain their own copyrights for their original written works, original photographs and art works. Our authors also welcome and encourage readers to copy, reference or quote from the content of their blog postings, provided that the content reprints include obvious author or website attribution and/or links to their original postings, in accordance with this website's Creative Commons License.

© Copyright, 2007-2011, All rights reserved, unless otherwise specified, first by each the respective authors of each of their own individual blogs and works, and then by the editor and publisher for any otherwise unreserved and all other content. Our editor primarily reviews blogs for spelling, grammar, punctuation and formatting and is not liable or responsible for the opinions expressed by individual authors. The opinions and accuracy of information in the individual blog posts on this site are the sole responsibility of each of the individual authors.