The aims of this paper are to illustrate where previous attempts at the characterisation of slippery slope arguments (SSAs) have gone wrong, to provide an analysis which better captures their true nature, and to show the importance of achieving a clear definition which distinguishes this argument structure from other forms with which it may be confused. The first part describes the arguments of Douglas Walton (2015) and others, which are found wanting due to their failure to capture the essence of the slippery slope and their inability to distinguish SSAs from other consequentialist forms of argument. The second part of the paper puts forward a clear analysis of what is special about SSAs: it is argued that all SSAs, properly so-named, claim that reaching a certain conclusion, A, involves the negation of a thitherto accepted principle, P, and that that principle is necessary to argue against further conclusions (B, C, …, Z) which are considered unacceptable.
Blassnig, S., Büchel, F., Ernst, N., Engesser, S. (2019). Populism and Informal Fallacies: An Analysis of Right-Wing Populist Rhetoric in Election Campaigns. Argumentation, 33(1), 107–136. doi:10.1007/s10503-018-9461-2
Cummings L. (2020). Fallacies in Medicine and Health. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28513-5_3
Devine, P. (2018). On Slippery Slopes. Philosophy, 93, 375–395.
den Hartogh, G. (1998). The Slippery Slope Argument. In H. Kuhse (Ed.), Companion to Bioethics (pp. 280–290). Oxford: Blackwell.
Feltz A. (2015). Everyday Attitudes About Euthanasia and the Slippery Slope Argument. In: M. Cholbi, J. Varelius (Eds.), New Directions in the Ethics of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (vol. 64, pp. 217–237). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22050-5_13
Hinton, M. (2018). Slippery Slopes and Other Consequences. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 27, 453–470.
Hinton, M. (2021). Evaluating the Language of Argument. Cham: Springer.
Jefferson, A. (2014). Slippery Slope Arguments. Philosophy Compass, 9(10), 672–680.
Lewis, P. (2007). The Empirical Slippery Slope from Voluntary to Non‐Voluntary Euthanasia. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 35(1), 197–210.
Liga D., Palmirani M. (2019). Detecting “Slippery Slope” and Other Argumentative Stances of Opposition Using Tree Kernels in Monologic Discourse. In: P. Fodor, M. Montali, D. Calvanese, D. Roman (Eds.), Rules and Reasoning. RuleML+RR 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (vol. 11784, pp. 180–189). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-31095-0_13
Lode, E. (1999). Slippery Slope Arguments and Legal Reasoning. California Law Review, 87(6), 1469–1544.
Potter, J. (2019). The Psychological Slippery Slope From Physician-Assisted Death to Active Euthanasia: A Paragon of Fallacious Reasoning. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 22, 239–244. doi:10.1007/s11019-018-9864-8
Rizzo M., Whitman, D. (2003). The Camel’s Nose in the Tent: Rules, Theories and Slippery Slopes. UCLA Law Review, 51, 539–592.
Strait, L. P., Alberti, L. (2019). The Role of Decision-Making Agency in Distinguishing Legitimate and Fallacious Slippery Slope Arguments. In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. R. Mitchell, J. H. M. Wagemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1083–1092). Amsterdam: SicSat.
de Swart, H. (2018). Philosophical and Mathematical Logic. Cham: Springer.
TFP Student Action. (2015). 10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed. Retrieved from: http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html
Van der Burg, W. (1991). The Slippery Slope Argument. Ethics, 102, 42–65.
Wagemans, J. H. M. (2019). Four Basic Argument Forms. Research in Language, 17(1), 57–69. doi:10.2478/rela-2019-0005
Wagemans, J. H. M. (2020). Argument Type Identification Procedure (ATIP)—Version 3. Retrieved from: www.periodic-table-of-arguments.org/argument-type-identification-procedure
Walton, D. (1992). Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walton, D. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (2015). The Basic Slippery Slope Argument. Informal Logic, 35(3), 273–311.
Walton, D. (2017). The Slippery Slope Argument in the Ethical Debate on Genetic Engineering of Humans. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(6), 1507–1528.