Once You Start Using Slippery Slope Arguments, You 're on a Very Slippery Slope'

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 21 (4):629-647 (2001)
Abstract
Slippery slope arguments (SSAs) are, so I argue, arguments from consequences which have the following peculiar characteristic: They take advantage of our being less than perfect in making—and acting according to—distinctions. But then, once SSAs are seen for what they are, they can be turned against themselves. Being less than perfect at making the second‐order distinction between distinctions we're good at abiding by and those we're bad at abiding by, we're bound to fail to make the distinction between good and bad SSAs. One can therefore construct an SSA, the conclusion of which is, that we ought not to use SSAs. After characterizing SSAs and constructing the SSA against the use of SSAs, I then explore its implications
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/ojls/21.4.629
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,300
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Slippery Slope Arguments.Anneli Jefferson - 2014 - Philosophy Compass 9 (10):672-680.
The Empirical Slippery Slope From Voluntary to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia.Penney Lewis - 2007 - Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 35 (1):197-210.

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
104 ( #49,867 of 2,193,087 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #59,795 of 2,193,087 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature