Slippery slope arguments are not inherently fallacious, and in some cases, a slippery slope argument can be a sound form of reasoning , rather than a logical fallacy. For example, the following is an example of a reasonable slippery slope argument:.
This slippery slope argument suggests that if we allow something relatively minor to happen now people leaving fires unattended anywhere in the forest , then a relatively major negative event will likely happen in the future a forest fire , which is a reasonable stance to take in this case. In general, whether or not a certain slippery slope argument is reasonable and logically sound depends on a number of factors, which in turn depend on the type of slippery slope argument that is used.
For example, when it comes to a causal slippery slope, the probability that the initial event will lead to the end event should be taken into account , since the more likely the end result is to occur, the stronger the slippery slope argument is. Accordingly, when slippery slopes are predictive in nature , their validity can be based on an assessment of the empirical evidence on the topic.
As such, while some slippery slopes are clearly reasonable, such as when they include a complete and definitive chain of events, and other slippery slopes are clearly fallacious, such as when there is no possible way to reach from the first event in the chain to the final one, the status of some slippery slopes is unclear and up for debate.
Finally, note that the way a slippery slope argument is phrased also affects its validity. Though people can use fallacious slippery slopes unintentionally, either during discussions or as part of their own reasoning process, fallacious slippery slope arguments are often used intentionally as rhetorical devices, since they can be quite persuasive when implemented correctly.
Slippery slope arguments that are used in this manner often involve extreme exaggeration, which evokes powerful emotions. Accordingly, slippery slopes are often combined with appeals to emotion , usually with the goal of appealing to negative emotions, such as fear or hate, but sometimes with the goal of appealing to positive emotions, such as hope or compassion.
Note that a slippery slope itself can lead either to a positive outcome or a negative one. When it leads to a positive outcome, a slippery slope can, for example, encourage people to undertake a certain course of action, with the promise of a major positive event in the end.
Conversely, when a slippery slope leads to a negative outcome, it can, for example, encourage people to avoid undertaking a certain course of action, with the threat that if they do undertake that action, then it will lead to a major negative outcome for them in the end. In general, slippery slopes are primarily associated with negative events, and as such, slippery slope arguments are frequently used as a fear-mongering technique.
As part of this, slippery slope arguments often include a parade of horribles , which is a rhetorical device that involves mentioning a number of highly negative outcomes that will occur as a result of the initial event in question.
Such arguments tend to follow specific patterns, such as saying that if a certain act is allowed in the present, then it will eventually lead to behavior that is similar to that of the Nazis.
Note : slippery slopes that are associated with a positive chain of events are sometimes referred to as representing a virtuous cycle , while slippery slopes that are associated with a negative chain of events are sometimes referred to as representing a vicious cycle. You can use any combination of these approaches that you think will work well. Writing Lab Menu open all close all. Sign in New account. Remember me. Log in.
Select a Role Educator Learner. Create account. Reset password. Next thing we know kids will get to drive at age ten, and vote at fifteen. Let kids be kids and adults be adults. Juan: I knew he was a dishonorable government official all along and now I can prove it. Maria : How? Juan: Well, he admitted that as a prisoner of war in Vietnam he continually lied to his captors. Maria: Yeah, he should have.
Juan : Sure, most people think that you can justify lies that protect your country in wartime. But then, of course, lying could be justified to protect your country in times of peace. Then, government officials become capable of justifying lying about all their activities. Now you can be sure that since he is accomplished at justifying his lies, he tells lies whenever he feels like it.
Now, we can never trust a thing he says. Today, women want the vote. Tomorrow, they'll want to be doctors and lawyers, and then combat soldiers. Give them that, and before long, they'll insist on taking the initiative in sex.
If you want to protect the very meaning of masculinity, you must deny them suffrage.
0コメント