Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (3):227-239 (2005)

Authors
Justin Oakley
Monash University
Abstract
The standard problem with many slippery slope arguments is that they fail to provide us with the necessary evidence to warrant our believing that the significantly morally worse circumstances they predict will in fact come about. As such these arguments have widely been criticised as ‘scare-mongering’. Consequentialists have traditionally been at the forefront of such criticisms, demanding that we get serious about guiding our prescriptions for right action by a comprehensive appreciation of the empirical facts. This is not surprising, since consequentialism has traditionally been committed to the idea that right action be driven by empirical realities, and this hard-headed approach has been an especially notable feature of Australian consequentialism. But this apparent empirical hard-headedness is very selective. While consequentialists have understood their moral outlook and commitments as guided by a partnership with empirical science – most explicitly in their replies to the arguments of their detractors – some consequentialists have been remarkably complacent about providing empirical support for their own prescriptions. Our key example here is the consequentialist claim that our current practises of partiality in fact maximise the good, impartially conceived. This claim has invariably been made without compelling support for the large empirical claims upon which it rests, and so, like the speculative empirical hand-waving of weak slippery slope arguments, it seems similarly to be undermined. While these arguments have presented us with ‘wishful thinking’ rather than ‘scare-mongering’, we argue in this paper that their complacency in meeting the relevant empirical justificatory burden remains much the same.
Keywords consequentialism  empiricism  evidential warrant  friendship  partiality  professional-client relationships  scare-mongering  slippery slope arguments
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11017-005-3985-9
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 54,431
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Practical Ethics.Peter Singer - 1979 - Cambridge University Press.
The Survival Lottery.John Harris - 1975 - Philosophy 50 (191):81 - 87.

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Slippery Slope Arguments.Anneli Jefferson - 2014 - Philosophy Compass 9 (10):672-680.
Good Medical Ethics, From the Inside Out—and Back Again.Justin Oakley - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (1):48-51.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Slippery Slope Arguments.David E. White - 1985 - Metaphilosophy 16 (2‐3):206-213.
Arguing Along the Slippery Slope of Human Embryo Research.Jeanne Salmon Freeman - 1996 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 21 (1):61-81.
Consequentialism and the Slippery Slope: A Response to Clark.Jonathan Hughes - 2000 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (2):213–220.
Slippery Slope Arguments.Douglas Walton - 1992 - Oxford University Press.
Human Gene Therapy and the Slippery Slope Argument.Veikko Launis - 2002 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5 (2):169-179.
Externalism, Architecturalism, and Epistemic Warrant.Martin Davies - 1998 - In Crispin Wright, Barry C. Smith & Cynthia Macdonald (eds.), Knowing Our Own Minds. Oxford University Press. pp. 321-363.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
77 ( #125,542 of 2,372,021 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #559,821 of 2,372,021 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes