• If only there was a word for this type of behavior…
• What is a Man?
• Hope for the Future
• A Dedication
• Atlas Blogged
• US Automakers: Rising to the Challenger?
• Global Warming and Eating Storm Crows
• Yet Another Republican Not Voting for McCain
• ReadableLaws
• Music Genome Project
• Another Great Goal
• Rick Nash, Simply Amazing
• Sports Quotables This Week
• A New Law or Smarter Parents?
• Professional Grade Football

• February 2008
• January 2008
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005

« Flavors of Libertarianism | Main | The Padilla Jury »

The Value of the Slippery Slope Argument (updated)

Allow me to highlight a few comments from a thread at Hit and Run:

Dan T : [I]t's the slippery slope fallacy.

Chicago Tom: It's not a fallacy if it actually happens Dan… where exactly is the fallacy?

Dan T : It's a fallacy because taking one step in a certain direction does not necessarily mean that you'll take another. That's not to say that you definitely won't take another, but you can't make that assumption.

Billy Beck: Ah. I get it. It's a fallacy because the logic of the first step is completely arbitrary and not interested in the integrity of the next step. In other words: it's all just made up as it goes along, with disclaimers along the way; "What? I'm not doin' nothin'!"
Very illuminating.

Thank you, Billy Beck, for expressing clearly a concept that I have tried to convey to various people at various times in the past. The problem with the slippery slope argument is only that it is sometimes used improperly. The whole point of the argument is that if there are not differences in principle between positions A, B, C, etc., then the differences in degree are completely arbitrary. This is reductio ad absurdum, essentially. It’s simply not a fallacious argument when used properly.

People often think it’s a fallacy either because it is used when it ought not to be – specifically, when there are differences in principle between A, B, and C (for example, “If you think it’s okay to kill a snake, then you would kill dogs or humans – it’s a slippery slope!”) - or because they subjectively and arbitrarily value B more than A or C (for example, “I’m not trying to ban smoking in your home, just in your car… for the children!”).

When the first step is completely arbitrary, and you can’t look that in the face, all you have left is to disavow the rules of logic. And at that point, why the hell not?

Update 8/21 As Scott Stein points out in the comments, he wrote about this back in January. When I was reading the Hit and Run comments, I had the nagging suspicion that I had recent had a discussion with somebody about this exact topic, but I couldn't pin it down. Re-reading Stein's article, I realize that his article is what I was thinking of. Thanks for the note, Scott!