Journal of Ethics 9 (3-4):475 - 499 (2005)
|Abstract||Our actions, individually and collectively, inevitably affect others, ourselves, and our institutions. They shape the people we become and the kind of world we inhabit. Sometimes those consequences are positive, a giant leap for moral humankind. Other times they are morally regressive. This propensity of current actions to shape the future is morally important. But slippery slope arguments are a poor way to capture it. That is not to say we can never develop cogent slippery slope arguments. Nonetheless, given their most common usage, it would be prudent to avoid them in moral and political debate. They are often fallacious and have often been used for ill. They are normally used to defend the moral status quo. Even when they are cogent, we can always find an alternate way to capture their insights. Finally, by accepting that the moral roads on which we travel are slippery, we become better able to successfully navigate them.|
|Keywords||consistency free speech habit inductive generalization negative consequentialist argument physician-assisted suicide risk slippery slope virtues|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David E. White (1985). Slippery Slope Arguments. Metaphilosophy 16 (2‐3):206-213.
Justin Oakley & Dean Cocking (2005). Consequentialism, Complacency, and Slippery Slope Arguments. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (3):227-239.
Thomas Douglas (2010). Intertemporal Disagreement and Empirical Slippery Slope Arguments. Utilitas 22 (2):184-197.
Veikko Launis (2002). Human Gene Therapy and the Slippery Slope Argument. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5 (2):169-179.
David Resnik (1994). Debunking the Slippery Slope Argument Against Human Germ-Line Gene Therapy. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (1):23-40.
Jeanne Salmon Freeman (1996). Arguing Along the Slippery Slope of Human Embryo Research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 21 (1):61-81.
Douglas N. Walton (1992). Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford University Press.
Jonathan Hughes (2000). Consequentialism and the Slippery Slope: A Response to Clark. Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (2):213–220.
Julia Tanner (2009). The Argument From Marginal Cases and the Slippery Slope Objection. Environmental Values 18 (1):51-66.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads40 ( #33,678 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?