Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T07:09:43.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Slippery Slopes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2018

Philip E. Devine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I here discuss an argument frequently dismissed as a fallacy – the slippery slope or camel's nose. The argument has three forms – analogical, argumentative, and prudential. None of these provides a deductive guarantee, but all can provide considerations capable of influencing the intellect. Our evaluation of such arguments reflects our background social and evaluative assumptions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy , Volume 93 , Issue 3 , July 2018 , pp. 375 - 393
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 McClay, , ‘Mr. Emerson's Tombstone’, First Things, no. 83 (May, 1998), 20Google Scholar.

2 44 Liquormart Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 US 489 (1996).

3 Dowden, B., Logical Reasoning (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1993), A8–9Google Scholar: Rafalko, R., Logic for an Overcast Tuesday (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1990), 446Google Scholar.

4 For a defense of the SSA by a legal scholar, see Schauer, F., ‘Slippery Slopes’, Harvard Law Review 99 (1985), 361ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Volokh, E., ‘The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope’, Harvard Law Review 116 (February, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rizzo, M. and Whitman, D., ‘The Camel's Nose Is in the Tent: Rules, Theories, and Slippery Slopes’, UCLA Law Review 51 (2003), 539ffGoogle Scholar; and Lode, E., ‘Slippery Slope Arguments and Legal Reasoning’, California Law Review 87 (December, 1999), 1469ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 For a compendium, see Lode, op. cit. n. 4, 1473–74. For a polemic against the SSA in biomedical contexts, see Burgess, J. A., ‘The Great Slippery-slope Argument’, Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (2012); 531–532Google Scholar http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.19.3.169,

6 Copi, I., Cohen, C., and McMahon, K., Introduction to Logic, 14thedition (Boston: Prentice Hall, 2011), 131–32Google Scholar.

7 E. van den Haag, ‘Make Mine Hemlock’, National Review, June 12th 1995.

8 Z. Simpser, ‘A Murder is a Murder’, New York Times, May 3rd 2002.

9 As Lode, op. cit. n.4, 1481, points out against Schauer, op. cit. n.4, 369.

10 Actually even Nazi Germany could have got worse. Hitler wanted all Germans to follow his example and kill themselves. Goeschel, C., ‘Suicide at the End of the Third Reich’, Journal of Contemporary History 41 (2006), 153–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Kohl, M., The Morality of Killing (New York: Humanities, 1972), 50Google Scholar.

12 Flew, A., ‘The Principle of Euthanasia’, in Downing, A. B. (ed.) Euthanasia and the Right to Death (Los Angeles: Nash, 1972), 47 n.14Google Scholar.

13 Douglass, F., ‘Why Should a Colored Man Enlist?’ in Kass, L., Kass, A., and Schaub, D., (eds) What So Proudly We Hail (Wilmington, DE: ISI: 2011)Google Scholar.

14 Jefferson, , ‘Slippery Slope Arguments’, Philosophy Compass 9/10 (2014): 672–680, at 674CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Kennedy, E., Constitutional Failure (Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Baker v. State, 744 A 2d 864, 884–885 (Vt., 1999).

17 Volokh, op. cit. n.4, 1058–1059. Much the same thing has happened in Belgium. B. Mason and C. Weitenberg, ‘Allow Me to Die’, SBS, November 24th 2015, http://www.sbs.com.au/news/dateline/story/allow-me-die.

18 Williams, B., ‘Which Slopes are Slippery?’ in Lockwood, M., (ed.) Moral Dilemmas in Modern Medicine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), ch. 6Google Scholar.

19 Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter, JJ).

20 His example is Tooley, M., Abortion and Infanticide (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

21 Op. cit., n. 16, 136–37.

22 For example English, J., ‘Abortion and the Concept of the Person’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 5(2) (October 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Lode, op. cit., n.4, 1509.

24 Rizzo and Whitman, op. cit. n.4, 575–76.

25 Ibid., 565–66 and n.74, discussing People v. Kurr, 654 N.W.2d 65 [Mich. Ct. App. 2002]).

26 Despite A. Marmor, ‘Varieties of Vagueness in Law’, University of Southern California Law School, Legal Working Paper Series, no. 89 (2012), http://law.be.press.com/usclwps-lss/art892012:10.

27 Lode, op. cit., n. 4, 1479.

28 Rizzo and Whitman, op. cit. n. 4, 571.

29 Walton, , Slippery Slope Arguments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), xiiiGoogle Scholar.

30 For a detailed discussion of the SSA concerning abortion, see Wreen, M., ‘The Standing is Slippery’, Philosophy 79, (October 2004), 553–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819104000440.

31 For present purposes I ignore the complications concerning the pre-embryo. See Smith, B., and Brogaard, B., ‘Sixteen Days’, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28, no. 1(2003), 45–78CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, arguing for a cut-off point after conception: and Grisez, G., ‘When Do People Begin?’ in Heaney, S. (ed.) Abortion: A New Generation of Catholic Responses (Braintree, MA: Pope John Center, 1993)Google Scholar, for a defense of the decisive significance of the moment of conception.

32 Glover, J., Causing Death and Saving Lives (Harmondsworth, Eng.: Penguin 1977)Google Scholar, argues for an arbitrary cut-off point; Lode, op. cit. n. 4, 1497–1503, likewise rejects ‘rational grounds’ SSA's.

33 See my ‘Capital Punishment and the Sanctity of Life’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 24 (2000), 228–242Google Scholar.

34 Fogelin, R., Understanding Argumentation, 3rd edition (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987), 83–84Google Scholar.

35 Pope Paul III, Sublimis Deus (1537). Cited in Thomas, H., The Slave Trade (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1977), 125Google Scholar.

36 ‘Roe v. Wade for Men™’, National Center for Men, Press Release, n.d., http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page7/shtml.

37 See http://www.selfmarriageceremonies.com/about-self-marriage/.

38 Despite Grisez, G., ‘Against Consequentialism’, The American Journal of Jurisprudence 23 (1978), 21–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 See Volokh, op. cit. n. 4.

40 Harte, C., Changing Unjust Laws Justly: Pro-Life Solidarity with ‘the Last and Least’ (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

41 Arkes, H., Natural Rights and the Right to Choose (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 247Google Scholar.

42 For example, T. Metz, ‘Why We Should Disestablish Marriage’, http://academic.reed.edu/poli_sci/faculty/metz/metz-marriage.pdf; see more fully her Untying the Knot (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010); for rosters of other scholars who support this proposal, see Metz, Knot, 165n. 24 and 181–82n.38. For conservative religious support for this proposal, see G. Weigel, ‘The Crisis of a Second Obama Administration’, Denver Catholic Register, 2012, http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/9360. For a symposium on Weigel's argument, see Anderson, R. T. et al. , ‘The Church and Civil Marriage’, First Things no. 242 (April, 2014), 33–34Google Scholar.

43 Note the title of David Enoch's essay, ‘Once You Start Using Slippery Slope Arguments, You are on a Very Slippery Slope’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 21 no. 4 (2001), 629–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Op. cit. n. 43.

45 The slope from voluntary to non-voluntary (as opposed to strictly involuntary) euthanasia is particularly slippery. As Dr. F. Kennedy put it, ‘If the law sought to restrict euthanasia to those who could speak out for it, and thus overlooked these creatures who cannot speak, then I say as Dickens did, “The law's an ass”’, New York Times, February 14th 1939, quoted in Y. Kamisar, ‘Euthanasia Legislation: Some Non-Religious Objections’, Downing, (ed.) op. cit. n.12, 108.

46 The Supreme Court has defended vulgar speech to protect serious political argument. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24–25 (1971).

47 So Lamb, D., Down the Slippery Slope (London: Croom Helm 1988), 20Google Scholar.

48 I am indebted to Michael Wreen for his comments on a draft of this paper.