Slipping on slippery slope arguments

Area of Science:

• Philosophy
• Argumentation Theory
• Logic

Background:

• Slippery slope arguments (SSAs) are frequently employed in philosophical discourse.
• These arguments are often dismissed as fallacious and lacking empirical support.
• A 'meta-SSA' specifically targets the use of SSAs, advocating for their complete avoidance.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically examine prominent arguments against the use of SSAs.
• To identify mechanisms that lead to real-world slippery slopes.
• To determine the conditions under which SSAs are justifiable.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of existing critiques and meta-level arguments against SSAs.
• Identification and categorization of real-life mechanisms driving slippery slope scenarios.
• Case-by-case assessment of the strength and justifiability of SSAs.

Main Results:

• Prominent calls to avoid SSAs do not withstand critical scrutiny.
• Several distinct mechanisms contribute to the occurrence of slippery slopes in practice.
• The validity and justification of SSAs depend heavily on specific contexts.

Conclusions:

• SSAs should not be universally dismissed; their use requires context-specific evaluation.
• The existence of slippery slope mechanisms in reality supports the need for careful assessment.
• The study undermines the broad claim that SSAs should be avoided altogether.