56 lines
3.2 KiB
HTML
56 lines
3.2 KiB
HTML
|
<p>Something I have heard quite a bit about lately, at least in public
|
||
|
|
discussion, is the abusive accusations of the <em>Slippery Slope Fallacy</em>.
|
||
|
|
The proper understanding of this logical fallacy is when someone argues that the
|
||
|
|
consequences of accepting one point will inevitably lead to a series of events
|
||
|
|
leading to an unacceptable conclusion without any real logical or empirical
|
||
|
|
evidence that one necessarily leads to the next:</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<blockquote>
|
||
|
|
If <i>a</i> then <i>b</i>, if <i>b</i> then <i>c</i>, if <i>c</i> then
|
||
|
|
undesirable <i>d</i>.
|
||
|
|
</blockquote>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>Indeed, this type of logic is fallacious, but it is often confused with the
|
||
|
|
<i>reductio ad absurdum</i>, where one attempts to show that the consequences of
|
||
|
|
accepting certain premises (not conclusions) logically implies something which
|
||
|
|
is very obviously absurd or unacceptable. That is, to make the following
|
||
|
|
claim:</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<blockquote>
|
||
|
|
If <i>a</i> then <i>b</i>, but if <i>a</i> then also undesirable <i>c</i>
|
||
|
|
and <i>d</i>.
|
||
|
|
</blockquote>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>This sort of confusion occurs the most, it would seem to me, when discussing
|
||
|
|
matters of sexual ethics. It is common for those who wish to morally justify
|
||
|
|
certain behaviors to define moral parameters & premises from which they can
|
||
|
|
achieve the desired outcome. However, inadvertently they end up also justifying
|
||
|
|
a slew of other behaviors which (at least at the moment in our current cultural
|
||
|
|
context) seem utterly reprehensible. Yet when this is pointed out the accusation
|
||
|
|
tends to be thrown of committing the Slippery Slope Fallacy.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>For example, when one accepts the conclusion that the use of contraception is
|
||
|
|
morally licit based on the premises that sex does not have the primary final
|
||
|
|
cause of procreation, but rather it's simply a matter of pleasure, of which the
|
||
|
|
only limiting criteria is the vague notion of "consenting adults," these
|
||
|
|
premises logically allow for all sorts of depraved behavior ranging from
|
||
|
|
fornication, to sodomy, to incest, and beyond. This is not a matter of the
|
||
|
|
Slippery Slope Fallacy, but that the parameters used to define the moral limits
|
||
|
|
of the act itself are too loose and do not establish a coherent model.
|
||
|
|
Therefore, if someone were to retort to the acceptance of contraception under
|
||
|
|
these premises that such logic would also justify many behaviors we would most
|
||
|
|
certainly condemn, they engaging in a <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>, not the
|
||
|
|
Slippery Slope Fallacy.</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<p>Of course, how this looks at a social level will end up being different from
|
||
|
|
the pure logical parameters of the acceptance of certain conclusions. Most of us
|
||
|
|
pass our judgments not based upon logical statements & conclusions, but on
|
||
|
|
intuition and what we consider to be normal. This is not necessarily problematic
|
||
|
|
as we do not generally have the time to do all the logical calculations for
|
||
|
|
everything in our life, otherwise we would never get out of bed in the morning.
|
||
|
|
Yet the premises of these logical statements formed by the social philosophy of
|
||
|
|
our time do eventually get their conclusions to be normalized over time, albeit
|
||
|
|
slowly. Hence, after the acceptance of contraception we did not automatically
|
||
|
|
see also the acceptance of all the other conclusions of the aforementioned
|
||
|
|
logical statement.</p>
|