Slippery Slopes and Other Consequences

• Authors: Hinton Martin David
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The aim of this paper is to illustrate where previous attempts at the characterisation of Slippery Slope Arguments (SSAs) have gone wrong, and to provide an analysis which better captures their true nature. The first part describes Walton’s [10] arguments in support of his views on SSAs and also considers the characterisations put forward by other researchers. All of these are found wanting due to their failure to capture the essence of the slippery slope and their inability to distinguish SSAs from other consequentialist forms of argument. The second part puts forward a clearer analysis of what is special about SSAs and proposes an argumentation scheme which allows them to be easily distinguished from other arguments from consequences.

Keywords

EN

argument schemes; Douglas Walton; slippery slope arguments; arguments from consequences

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika (Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń)
• Journal: Logic and Logical Philosophy
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 27
• Issue: 4 Special Issue on Logic, Cognition, Argumentation. Guest Editors: Mariusz Urbański, Michiel van Lambalgen and Marcin Koszowy
• Pages: 453-470

Dates

published

2018-12-15

Contributors

author

Hinton Martin David

• University of Łódź Łódź, Poland

References

• Burgess, J., “The Great Slippery Slope Argument”, Journal of Medical Ethics 19 (1993): 169–174. DOI: 10.1136/jme.19.3.169
• Curtis, R., and B. Elton, “Bells”, Blackadder II, episode 1, 1986. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw4ZNIJpt2I
• den Hartogh, G., “The slippery slope argument”, pages 280–290 in H. Kuhse and P. Singer (eds.), Companion to bioethics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1998. DOI: 10.1002/9781444307818.ch28
• Jefferson, A., “Slippery slope arguments”, Philosophy Compass 9, 10 (2014): 672–680. DOI: 10.1111/phc3.12161
• Lode, E., “Slippery slope arguments and legal reasoning”, California Law Review 87, 6 (1999): 1469–1544. DOI: 10.2307/3481050
• Rizzo, M., and D. Whitman, “The camel’s nose is in the tent: Rules, theories and slippery slopes”, UCLA Law Review 51 (2003): 539–592. Available online: SSRN Electronic Journal. 2003. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.352981
• TFP Student Action, “10 reasons why homosexual ‘Marriage’ is harmful and must be opposed”, 2015. http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html (accessed 1 st September 2016).
• van der Burg, W., “The slippery slope argument”, Ethics 102 (1991): 42–65. DOI: 10.1086/293369
• Walton, D., Slippery Slope Arguments, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
• Walton, D., “The basic slippery slope argument”, Informal Logic 35, 3 (2015): 273–311. DOI: 10.22329/il.v35i3.4286