From the Introduction, pp. 1-2
A SLIPPERY slope argument is a kind of argument that warns you
if you take a first step, you will find yourself involved in a sticky sequence of
consequences from which you will be unable to extricate yourself, and eventually you will
wind up speeding faster and faster towards some disastrous outcome. . . .
It is characteristic of all slippery slope arguments that a
dangerous outcome of some contemplated course of action is warned of. But the slippery
slope argument is more than just a warning. The dangerous outcome is put forward as a
reason for not taking a first step in the contemplated course of action. It is an argument
put forward by a speaker to persuade a hearer not to take this first step, on the grounds
of the consequences that may follow.
Many textbooks on informal logic and critical thinking have a
section on the slippery slope argument, where it is often treated as a fallacy. However,
this book takes a case study approach which concludes that in some cases, the slippery
slope argument can be used correctly as a reasonable type of argumentation to shift a
burden of proof in a critical discussion, while in other cases it is used incorrectly.
Four types of slippery slope argument are identified and analyzed in the four central
chapters of the book. Each chapter presents guidelines that show how each type of slippery
slope argument can be used correctly or incorrectly in a particular case.
One type of slippery slope argument warns that if some new
step is taken, tried, or allowed, it will function as a precedent, which will set another
precedent, and then another, until "all hell will break loose." This variant of
the argument is also known as the (thin edge of the) wedge argument, the camel’s nose
in the tent argument, and the foot in the door argument.
Another type of slippery slope argument consists in the use of
the rejoinder "There is no cutoff point," when an argument contains a key term
that is vague, and the proponent of the argument is having difficulty defining the term in
a precise but non-arbitrary way. This variant was known to the ancient Greeks as the
"heap" argument (sorites) or "bald man" argument), because it could be
used to prove the non-existence of heaps or of bald men (paradoxically). It has also been
called the continuum argument, in recent times.
A third type of slippery slope argues that once some action is
carried out, it will cause a second event, that will in turn precipitate a causal sequence
of worse and worse consequences. This variant has been called the domino argument, or the
"this could snowball" argument (in colder climates). It has also been called the
"genie in the bottle argument," implying that a genie is an unkind force that
will run out of control, causing harm, and once it has been released from its bottle,
there will be no way to get it back in.
Sometimes a full-scale slippery slope argument will combine
all three of these variants as subarguments to suggest that given a favorable climate of
social acceptance, one first step, if taken, will trigger a contagious sequence of steps,
ultimately leading to a "parade of horrors." A horror like "the police
state" or "Nazi death squads" may be cited as the final outcome.
From Chapter Two "The Sorites Slippery Slope Argument" on verbal
disputes,
pp. 45-46
The sorites type of slippery slope argument is most commonly
used in everyday argumentation in situations where there is a problem, dispute, or
conflict of opinions, and the issue turns on a key term that is vague, with the result
that there is a difficulty of finding a fixed or single cutoff point along some contested
continuum. Thus abortion and euthanasia are two areas of ethical controversy that provide
precisely this kind of situation. With scientific and technical developments in
life-support systems, problematic situations arise where "life" is revealed as a
vague concept that could be defined to support either one side or the other of a moral
dilemma.
The sorites type of slippery slope typically centers around
the definition of a contested term or concept. What launches it, or makes it an
appropriate tactic of argumentation, is the kind of situation where one party in an
argumentative discussion tries to promote his side of the argument by using a
"friendly" definition that tends to support his side, and to go against the
other side. This can occur in negotiations, and other contexts of discussion, but it very
often occurs in a critical discussion about values—for example, an ethical
controversy about what is right or wrong in a morally problematic type of situation where
there is controversy and heated disagreement. What typically occurs is that the
substantive moral dispute turns to a verbal dispute on how a key term should be defined.
Some see such verbal disputes as trivial, as leading away from
resolving the main or "real" issue. But this is only sometimes an accurate
criticism. In general, a participant in a critical discussion should have the right to
advance a definition of a vague term, even if it tends to support his side of the case.
But equally, the other party in the discussion should have the right to challenge the
proposed definition, or to offer an alternative definition that he can give reasons for
preferring.
Verbal disputes can be carried to excess, but in principle,
they can be helpful in working towards resolving the issue in a critical discussion. The
basic reason is that all natural-language argumentation involves the use of vague terms
that are subject to clarification and definition.
The sorites type of slippery slope argument is one technique
of exploiting a verbal dispute or problem of vagueness. The proponent uses it to ask the
respondent where he can draw the line. If he can’t draw the line, he can be pushed,
by a slippery slope argument, into having to answer how he can reject drawing it in a way
that is inimical to his own position.
Slippery slope arguments flourish where scientific or
technical developments create new situations not covered by traditional terms, especially
controversial terms like "death," "life," and "person." New
options for defining these terms then become open to argumentation on issues of how the
new technology should be used or limited. The abortion issue seems to be the most common
example of this kind of argumentation.
|
