Another common causal fallacy may be called for shortness the "extrapolation fallacy." It may be described as follows. It is known or reasonably conjectured that a change in a certain direction has produced predominantly good results. It is then uncritically assumed that further doses of change in that direction will produce still further predominantly good results, and that it is desirable to administer these additional doses as soon as possible. It is forgotten that almost any change involves at least some loss in some respects as well as gain in others, and that it often produces certain positive evils which would otherwise not have existed. The gains may well overbalance the losses, and the main positive goods may well be greater than the collateral positive evils, until the process has gone a certain length; but the losses and the collateral evils may begin to predominate if it is carried further. Again, even if it be desirable on the whole to continue a certain process further in the same direction, it is often most undesirable to do so with the maximum possible speed. People who would benefit from a slow development, to each phase of which they had time to adapt themselves or to adapt their children, may be merely bewildered and demoralized if the pace becomes too hot for them.
(C. D. Broad, "Some Common Fallacies in Political Thinking," Philosophy 25 [April 1950]: 99-113, at 105-6)
Note from KBJ: It's hard to read this paragraph without thinking of homosexual "marriage," although Broad almost certainly did not have it in mind in 1950. What is the rush with regard to redefining "marriage" so as to include homosexuals? Why not move slowly so that (1) mistakes can be corrected before their full effects are felt and (2) people can adjust to the change? If the problem is survivor rights, for example, then existing legal devices can be adapted to the situation of homosexuals. If the problem is medical decisionmaking, the same thing can be done. If the problem is homosexual couples who have children, provision can be made for them without redefining "marriage." Even civil unions are better than marriage. There are grave dangers in redefining an institution as old and as important as marriage. What effect will it have on children, for example? Those who are advocating homosexual "marriage" are impatient. That's too bad. Their desire to have their relationships affirmed by society is not as important as the welfare of children. I have said this before, but it bears repeating. Many progressives argue that we should tread lightly on the natural world, for we don't fully understand how its components (including various plant and animal species) are related. One intervention could spell disaster. Why is this not true in the social realm? Is society any less complex than an ecosystem? Why are progressives so cautious in the one case but so reckless in the other?
