Permitting stem cell research on embryos does not logically imply that sacrificing infants or terminally ill patients is acceptable. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen. Research review studies[ edit ] In the most recent review paper on euthanasia in the Netherlands, namely the paper entitled Two Decades of Research on Euthanasia from the Netherlands.
The second argument invoked by opponents of a legal right to die is the argument that such a right will be abused and that no legal safeguards can prevent that abuse. A logical fallacy is a flawed argument. I will appreciate it. The strength of the argument depends on two factors.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
Once that change has been made, people might realize that the next step and then the next are also acceptable, even if they cannot see it now. An initial proposal A.
The idea is that as soon as the agent in question takes the first step he will be impelled forward through the sequence, losing control so that in the end he will reach the catastrophic outcome. Event X has occurred or will or might occur.
Both are scare tactics, the rhetorical force of which exceeds their logical strength.
Even when there are laws prohibiting certain general categories of acts, such as obscenity, it often requires a court decision to declare whether a particular act falls into a given category or not. They say, "Although there is no paradigm case of the slippery slope argument, there are characteristic features of all such arguments.
Then, government officials become capable of justifying lying about all their activities. If we allow gay marriage, the next thing we know, people will want to marry their dogs, or their cats, or what about their pigs?
Even though there are a great many laws, no one can reasonably think that laws are co-extensive with morality or moral principles. But the problem is that very many defenders of a legal right to die would deny that those instances of euthanasia are wrong.
If they are treated alike at all, it will because they are considered to be similar in morally relevant ways or because they each have their own different rationales that justify the same treatment.
The cop could not bear thinking any further, and fired his gun.
The only group with a heightened risk was people with AIDS. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen.
This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another. I knew he was a dishonorable government official all along and now I can prove it.
He says, "If you are faced with the pragmatic question "Does it make sense for me to support A, given that it might lead others to support B? Domino fallacy[ edit ] T. Some of us think that the suffering that a person endures need not be the product of a terminal disease in order for it to be intolerable.
That is a situation where business people tend to believe either or both of the following statements -- statements which are both actually false: For these reasons, it seems best to propose drawing a distinction between dam burst arguments and slippery slope arguments.
Hence, any "slipping" to be found is only in the clumsy thinking of the arguer, who has failed to provide sufficient evidence that one causally explained event can serve as an explanation for another event or for a series of events. Howard Kahane suggests that the domino variation of the fallacy has gone out of fashion because it was tied the domino theory for the United States becoming involved in the war in Vietnam and although the U.
And another that is only detectable at six months?
There are many different types of logical fallacy. Well, he admitted that as a prisoner of war in Vietnam he continually lied to his captors. The rejection of A based on this belief. Once we let people go through a green light, it is just another step on the slippery slope till they are going through red lights en masse.
Conceptual slippery slopes, which Trudy Govier calls the fallacy of slippery assimilation,   are closely related to the sorites paradox so, for example, in the context of talking about slippery slopes Merilee Salmon can say, "The slippery slope is an ancient form of reasoning.
Orientations in Law, Politics and Ethics.Description of Slippery Slope The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.
Slippery Slope is a specific type of logical fallacy.A logical fallacy is a flawed argument. There are many different types of logical fallacy.
Slippery slope is one example of a fallacy. It is an argument that suggests taking a minor action will lead to major and sometimes ludicrous consequences. Co-authored by Gabriel Weinberg who is the CEO of DuckDuckGo and an advisor to The School of Thought.
You can see a brilliant Medium post he wrote on this subject here. The slippery slope and the abuse argument are both compatible with the view that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the practices at issue.
Any person could hold the view that euthanasia and assisted suicide are morally permissible, but then deny that they should be made legal on account of the slippery slope and the danger of abuse. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a consequentialist logical device in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.
Jan 05, · The slippery slope argument is used in discussing euthanasia and similar topics. For example, people worry that if voluntary euthanasia were to be made legal, it would not be long before.Download