Logic is not our generation's strong suit. Most University students walk around holding many inconsistent and illogical beliefs on a regular basis. For example, many students believe "There is no Truth" or some variation (no absolutes, it's all relative), ignoring the fact they have just made a truth claim they believe is True. They will believe that everyone should be tolerant except against intolerant people. I have had people look me in the eye and tell me they don't really know if 2+2=4 or not. If I point out the logical errors of their ways, that they have broken the law of non-contradiction and inherently contradicted themselves, they simply point out that logic is all a social construct and language is inherently meaningless anyway. Nevermind that statement must be meaningful to be true. It is at this point I feel like ripping my hair out and ought to leave the conversation, although I must be masochistic because I often stay for more. "Surely they can't be this illogical!" I think. Oh how wrong I am. Thank you post-modernism and sociology.
Totally A Fallacy
Of course, it is these same people, these same exact students, who deny the application of basic logic onto their arguments, who love to use what they call the "slippery slope fallacy." Oh I know you've heard of it.
Say a conservative/Christian type brings up the idea that the cultural acceptance of homosexuality and denial of heterosexual marriage as the standard for sexuality will lead to the acceptance of other forms of sexual expression like polygamy or bestiality. Before the words "polygamy" are even out of their mouth, any good social justice warrior will have their logic hats on to teach you a lesson about the "slippery slope fallacy." "That's a fallacy!" they respond. "Just because you do A doesn't necessarily and logically mean that it will lead to B." Congratulations! You can use basic logic! Now why, oh why, for the love of God, can you not apply that logic to any other area of your life? Why so selective, why the cognitive dissonance, why the double think? Well it's simple, because it's convenient for your argument at the time. So the slippery slope is a fallacy, apparently.
Never mind that's not actual what anyone is arguing. There is nothing intrinsic about homosexuality that will inevitably lead to polygamy, there is no slippery slope. The logical connection rests in the removal of an absolute and objective standard for human sexuality. When sexuality becomes no longer based on the Bible, but instead based on shifting cultural standards of acceptance, then sexuality will become whatever the society says it is. Furthermore, based on the Biblical Christian belief in the sinfulness of man, it would make sense that the acceptance of one sin would lead to the other sins. But that's more of a theological truth, not an exclusively logical one. I remember how proud I was the day I explained this to one of my professors and she actually admitted that if society changed, polygamy, incest, or bestiality could just as easily become culturally accepted. It was one of those sad, bittersweet, kind of proud moments. Like, "yay, I proved how screwed we are." Given the current movement pushing toward cultural acceptance of polygamy, I have to only role my eyes. Oh you mean people who know nothing about logic misunderstood a logical fallacy? Go figure.
Totally Not A Fallacy
And now the ole "slippery slope argument" is making a recent comeback in the news. Yet, now, strangely, it is being used by the same secular progressives that said the slippery slope argument was a fallacy. In the aftermath of the Hobby Lobby argument the word "slippery slope" is getting thrown around a lot in relation to the consequences of the decision. If the court grants a religious exception to a corporation for birth control, where do the exceptions stop? Why, they could claim religious exception for blood transfusions, vaccinations, or discrimination! Here's a few logical, totally reasonable, not fallacy arguments:
"Birth control is banned by the Bible? Sure. Blood transfusions are banned by the Bible? Don’t be silly. For now. We have no idea, really, how far the Court might be willing to extend RFRA. Could a CEO refuse to pay childbirth costs for unmarried women? Could he pay married men more because that’s what the Lord wants?" - Katha Pollitt (The Nation)
"Many more companies will claim religious beliefs. Some will be some sincere, others maybe not. We’re going to see this one insurable service cut out for many women. This is a really bad, slippery slope.” - Hillary Clinton
"Under such a ruling, it's not far-fetched to imagine companies (genuinely or disingenuously) claiming religious exemptions in refusing to serve gay customers or denying health insurance coverage to the multi-racial child of an employee. In fact, what would stop companies from saying that their religion makes them opposed to taxes or obeying pollution regulations or you name it?" - Sally Kohn (Daily Beast)
Those are some solid logical arguments, right? Or maybe more like total hypothetical conjecture based in no fact for the purpose of stirring up fear? "Imagine," they say. How about, "think." Let's just take a step back and look at a direct quote from the majority decision.
"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.”
You see, in case you don't understand what "opinion" means in the Supreme Court, that's not just Justice Alito's opinion on the matter. He's not just theorizing or being hopeful. Those words are now binding precedent. That means that this case decision will not and cannot apply to blood transfusions, vaccinations, or discrimination. The opinion elsewhere explains why this is not like claiming religious exception from taxes because there is no less restrictive means for collecting taxes than simply collecting them. That issue was already settled in court, 60 years ago, in relation to Social Security.
Based on the Court's decision, I can definitively and absolutely say this is not a slippery slope. The language which prevents the slippery slope is built right into the decision. "This is not like those other things," it is saying, "it only applies to the contraception mandate and only applies to closely held corporations." If other organizations want to claim their own religious exceptions they have to take their own cases to be determined on their own merits, as has been done in the past. The court is quite familiar with prisoners claiming bogus religious exceptions or companies trying to get out of taxes or trying to discriminate. Nothing has changed for those. In this particular case, there was a less restrictive means for protecting the government interest and the legitimate religious conviction. That's not true in those other cases. Remember a slippery slope means that B will logically and necessarily follow from A. The Court has perfectly demonstrated, both within the decision and in previous cases, that those other cases are not the same and are not related.
You see, this is how logic and reason actually works. You sit down, put on your thinking cap, and sort through things to see what is true. You don't freak out because some blogger told you your rights are being taken away. That's what the Supreme Court does for a living: they use their brains to judge things. That doesn't necessarily mean they are right (that would be a fallacy!), but it does mean that when they say there is no slippery slope, that has binding precedent that other courts have to follow. Besides, you don't get to use logic only to suit you. You can't say the slippery slope argument is a fallacy prima face and then use it all day in a similar instance. That would be... well... a fallacy. That's my biggest problem with the response to the Hobby Lobby decision. I can't really honestly say I care that much about the decision because it doesn't really effect me. But this response is all so illogical and unreasonable. That's why I keep writing about and responding to it. More than fighting progressives or Democrats, who I don't want to fight but would rather talk to, I feel like I'm fighting irrationality. I disagree with Justice Ginsberg's dissent and I think she makes a few key errors but at least it was logical and well thought out. I can't say the same for most other responses. We all need to slow down, take a breath, and think.
Seth
No comments:
Post a Comment