Slippery Slope Argument
Slippery Slope Argument
Phil 103
19 April 2006
When one argues against an idea or action, one form often used is called the slippery slope argument. In a slippery slope argument, one takes a consequentialist view on the action in question, then extrapolates the further outcome sometimes based on evidence, sometimes not. For example, I might argue that my teacher should not eat chocolate ice cream, because of two reasons: Eating chocolate ice cream stimulates pleasure centers in the brain, and eating chocolate ice cream causes weight gain. Stimulating pleasure centers in the brain can easily become an addiction. The conclusion I reach is that if my teacher became addicted to chocolate ice cream it would only be a matter of time before he could not teach me, since he would be trapped in his bedroom, grossly overweight, watching Oprah and eating pint after pint of Ben & Jerry’s.
It is easy to see that while the two initial reasons are valid, the predicted outcome has no data to support it. Sometimes slippery slope arguments are very valid, and point to logical outcomes, and other times they manipulate the argument and point to groundless doom. Peggy Noonan presents us a slippery slope argument in relation to the case of Terry Schiavo. Noonan state that
"When a society comes to believe that human life is not inherently worth living, it is a slippery slope to the gas chamber. You wind up on a low road that twists past Columbine and leads toward Auschwitz. Today that road runs through Pinellas Park, Fla."
In taking apart the quote, we can see that Noonan subscribes to a Vitalistism point of view. This means that she believes human life to be inherently worth living, that it has an intrinsic value. This point of view is opposite of a ‘quality of life’ philosophy. A quality of life view is one in which a person feel that human life has an extrinsic value, that life without any meaningful returns can be morally ended.
Anther thing to note is
Phil 103
19 April 2006
When one argues against an idea or action, one form often used is called the slippery slope argument. In a slippery slope argument, one takes a consequentialist view on the action in question, then extrapolates the further outcome sometimes based on evidence, sometimes not. For example, I might argue that my teacher should not eat chocolate ice cream, because of two reasons: Eating chocolate ice cream stimulates pleasure centers in the brain, and eating chocolate ice cream causes weight gain. Stimulating pleasure centers in the brain can easily become an addiction. The conclusion I reach is that if my teacher became addicted to chocolate ice cream it would only be a matter of time before he could not teach me, since he would be trapped in his bedroom, grossly overweight, watching Oprah and eating pint after pint of Ben & Jerry’s.
It is easy to see that while the two initial reasons are valid, the predicted outcome has no data to support it. Sometimes slippery slope arguments are very valid, and point to logical outcomes, and other times they manipulate the argument and point to groundless doom. Peggy Noonan presents us a slippery slope argument in relation to the case of Terry Schiavo. Noonan state that
"When a society comes to believe that human life is not inherently worth living, it is a slippery slope to the gas chamber. You wind up on a low road that twists past Columbine and leads toward Auschwitz. Today that road runs through Pinellas Park, Fla."
In taking apart the quote, we can see that Noonan subscribes to a Vitalistism point of view. This means that she believes human life to be inherently worth living, that it has an intrinsic value. This point of view is opposite of a ‘quality of life’ philosophy. A quality of life view is one in which a person feel that human life has an extrinsic value, that life without any meaningful returns can be morally ended.
Anther thing to note is