Slippery Slope Arguments

26 Pages Posted: 8 Aug 2009

See all articles by Wibren van der Burg

Wibren van der Burg

Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam; Queen Mary University of London, School of Law

Date Written: August 7, 2009

Abstract

Slippery slope arguments hold that one should not do A in order to prevent from arriving in some clearly undesirable situation B. There are various types of slippery slope arguments which should be carefully distinguished. We should also distinguish the contexts in which the slope is used, as the mechanisms of social dynamics and the role of logic differ in each of these contexts. They are not fallacies, but they are only seldom fully convincing arguments - although they are often rhetorically highly effective. Their most important role is in institutionalized contexts like law where they may shift the burden of proof.

Revised version of article in Enc. of Applied Ethics, submitted for second edition.

Keywords: Arbitrariness, argument from added authority, critical morality, domino theory, drugs, euthanasia, fallacy, law, rhetoric, slippery slope argument, social morality, sorites, vagueness, wedge.

Suggested Citation

van der Burg, Wibren, Slippery Slope Arguments (August 7, 2009). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1445308 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1445308

Wibren Van der Burg (Contact Author)

Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam ( email )

Section Sociology, Theory and Methodology
PO Box 1738
3000 DR Rotterdam
Netherlands

HOME PAGE: http://www.wibrenvanderburg.nl

Queen Mary University of London, School of Law ( email )

Mile End Road
London, E1 4NS
United Kingdom

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
460
Abstract Views
2,315
rank
62,571
PlumX Metrics