Cultural Treasures and Slippery Slopes. Richard Joyce - - Public Affairs Quarterly 17 1 The Slippery Slopes of Connectionist Consciousness. John G. Taylor - - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 1 Slippery Slopes and Collapsing Taboos. John Woods - - Argumentation 14 2 William Gardner - - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 1 Added to PP index Total views 4 1,, of 2,, Recent downloads 6 months 1 , of 2,, How can I increase my downloads?
Sign in to use this feature. About us. Editorial team. This article has no associated abstract. No keywords specified fix it. Find it on Amazon. Edit this record Mark as duplicate Export citation Find it on Scholar Request removal from index Translate to english Revision history.
Agonist theorists have argued against deliberative democrats that democratic institutions should not seek to establish a rational consensus, but rather allow political disagreements to be expressed … Expand. Slippery Slopes and Life and Death. I have alluded to slippery slope arguments several times in the preceding discussions.
These arguments are commonplace in bioethical debate. The rationality of informal argumentation: a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Classical informal reasoning "fallacies," for example, begging the question or arguing from ignorance, while ubiquitous in everyday argumentation, have been subject to little systematic investigation … Expand. These are the so-called argumentam ad ignorantiam, the circular argument or petitio … Expand.
What is Freedom of Speech For. Since The Satanic Verses a familiar and now somewhat predictable pattern of events unfolds each time a freedom of speech controversy erupts, which they appear to be doing on a more or less regular … Expand. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Need an account? Click here to sign up. Download Free PDF. The Uses of Slippery Slope Argument. A short summary of this paper. Belo Horizonte At vitiosi sunt soritae […] Quo in numero conticuisti, si ad eum numerum unum addidero, multane erunt?
Progrediere rursus, quoad videbitur. Quid plura? Hoc enim fateris, neque ultimum te paucorum neque primum multorum respondere posse. Cicero, Academica II, cxxix, Varieties of Slippery Slope Argument3 1 Cicero Slippery Slope Argument Slippery Slope Arguments are well known and commonly employed in certain areas of inquiry, though mainly in bioethics.
But there is no morally relevant difference between the neonate and the foetus just before it emerges from the womb. And so, too, for any stage of the developing foetus and the immediately preceding stage, until we slide all the way back to the newly fertilized egg the zygote.
And against the practice of in vitro fertilization:6 IVF [in vitro fertilization] gives rise to extra-fertilized ova, and experimentation is at least permitted, and perhaps required, on those ova.
The period of time during which such experiments are allowed is limited, but the argument goes there is a natural progression to longer and longer such periods being permitted, until we arrive at the horrible result of experimentation on developed embryos. And, also, against voluntary assisted suicide:7 If assisted suicide is legalized, we will see that what is now considered as a desperate and extraordinary solution for the few will become yet another possible outcome on the care map.
But these arguments are widely appealed to not only in bioethics. In law and in politics too we can find many examples. For instance:8 Take, for example, the common argument against reduction in the size of juries from the traditional twelve, an issue that was presented for criminal cases in Williams v.
Florida and for civil cases in Colgrove v. In both Williams and Colgrove it was argued that if jury size could be reduced from twelve to six, then why not to five, or four, or three, with the 4 See, for instance, Hartogh Glucksberg, US and Vacco v. Quill, US The cases are Williams v. Florida 99 U. Battin and U. In Ballew v. Georgia, U. I shall come back on this point. Slippery Slope Argument implicit claim being that there was no real stopping point short of eliminating the jury entirely.
Another example from politics and law: Senator Rick Santorum declared in an interview by the Associated Press April 7, :9 If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.
You have the right to anything. It seems that these five arguments share the idea that accepting a certain practice, prima facie admissible, compels us to accept other practices, which by contrast are clearly impermissible.
In this sense it is a practical argument. But what is the nature of that compulsion? Are we logically conceptually compelled or are we empirically compelled?
While the argument against abortion appears to be conceptual in character, the argument against assisted suicide seems empirical. Basically, you could view the rules as completely arbitrary and open to change by agreement, or you could take the view that the rules are used to create a forum for a particular kind of human excellence which is not arbitrary to be celebrated.
If you take the latter view, there may be moral constraints on the flexibility of the rules that go beyond just fairness and harm. I did read your series earlier where you discuss the integrity etc arguments [I should mention in passing that your blog posts are all excellent reads and invariably provoke at least some thoughts in my head].
These ideas seem implicit in the McNamee book too, but I can't see a plausible way to balance off a harm versus a celebration.
Undoubtedly we do make exactly those kinds of choices everyday I rock climb Yes well I think it would come down then to how we relate different moral values.
0コメント