What fallacy is this?

“…[I]f once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. Once begin upon this downward path, you never know where you are to stop. Many a man has dated his ruin from some murder or other that perhaps he thought little of at the time.”

Is it the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Nope!

Could it be the slippery slope fallacy?

Sound like a reverse slippery slope argument.

BTW, that’s from “Murder as a Fine Art” by Thos. DeQuincy, no?

It sounds like a slippery slope.  I don’t know why Mesa Mike would call it a reverse slippery slope, and am curious about the term “reverse.”

Most slippery slope arguments begin with little things and escalates ,in steps, in stages, to bigger and bigger and bigger things!
[I was giving one of many attitudes involved in slippery slope.]

Apparently, because we started with a BIG thing, murder, and we progressed towards disobedience into smaller things, and soon to small things—such can be labeled “reverse slippery slope.”

Roland

Wow.  Where’s my head at?  Been quite a while since I’ve tried to ply the old noodle on these logic issues.  In fact, I really haven’t made any concerted effort on the formal/informal logic front since 2004.  No wonder I put in with a really stupid answer “post hoc ergo propter hoc”!

In any case, I re-read the quote and agree with Dylan, and Lynn that it appears to be a slippery slope argument.  If I’m wrong along with Dylan and Lynn then I’m going to go and beat my head in with “The Fallacy Detective” and “The Thinking Toolbox”.  Not a logical move, for sure, but it might just increase the chances of osmosis helping out.

The person making the observation is moving from one specific action into an over-generalization of many non-specific actions to come.  From one specific act, will come many, so says the observer.

I need to consult my Copi and Hurley to cough up the exact name of this fallacy.

Roland

“Apparently, because we started with a BIG thing, murder, and we progressed towards disobedience into smaller things, and soon to small things—such can be labeled ‘reverse slippery slope.’”

Ah, thanks, makes sense.

Actually, it seems to be a parody of the Slippery Slope Fallacy.

A parody of a fallacy isn’t the fallacy itself, is it?

I think if there is a fallacy here, it more along the lines of a Straw Man. The parody is supposed to make us think that the slippery slope that’s being parodied is fallacious.

Not all slippery slope arguments are fallacious, though!