Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Consequentialism, complacency, and slippery slope arguments.

Justin Oakley1, Dean Cocking

  • 1Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Victoria, Australia. justin.oakley@arts.monash.edu.au

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
|July 29, 2005
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Accommodating plural values in healthcare and healthcare policy.

Monash bioethics review·2025
Same author

Misaligned hope and conviction in health care.

Bioethics·2024
Same author

Where There's Hope, There's Life 1 : On the Importance of Hope in Health Care.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2024
Same author

Should the Use of Adaptive Machine Learning Systems in Medicine be Classified as Research?

The American journal of bioethics : AJOB·2024
Same author

Expanding choice at the end of life.

Journal of medical ethics·2023
Same author

Religious pluralism in healthcare.

Bioethics·2022

Many slippery slope arguments lack evidence and are criticized as scare-mongering. Consequentialists, despite demanding empirical support, often fail to provide it for their own claims, such as those on partiality.

Area of Science:

  • Moral Philosophy
  • Ethics
  • Consequentialism

Background:

  • Slippery slope arguments are often criticized for lacking empirical evidence, leading to accusations of scare-mongering.
  • Consequentialism traditionally emphasizes empirical facts to guide moral prescriptions, a stance particularly noted in Australian consequentialism.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically examine the empirical justifications used in consequentialist arguments, particularly concerning practices of partiality.
  • To highlight the selective empirical scrutiny within consequentialism, contrasting its demands on detractors with its own evidential standards.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of common criticisms leveled against slippery slope arguments.
  • Examination of consequentialist claims, specifically the assertion that current partiality practices maximize overall good.
Keywords:
Bioethics and Professional EthicsPhilosophical Approach

Related Experiment Videos

  • Comparative critique of evidential burdens in slippery slope arguments versus consequentialist self-justification.

    • Main Results:

    • Many slippery slope arguments fail to provide sufficient evidence for predicted negative outcomes.
    • Consequentialist arguments, including those justifying partiality, often lack robust empirical support for their core claims.
    • A parallel is drawn between the speculative nature of weak slippery slope arguments and the unsubstantiated empirical claims within consequentialism.

    Conclusions:

    • Consequentialists exhibit a selective empirical rigor, demanding evidence from opponents while often failing to provide it for their own ethical prescriptions.
    • The claim that current partiality practices maximize good is presented as an example of consequentialism's complacency in meeting its empirical justificatory burden.
    • Both weak slippery slope arguments and certain consequentialist justifications suffer from a similar lack of compelling empirical backing.