Something I have heard quite a bit about lately, at least in public +discussion, is the abusive accusations of the Slippery Slope Fallacy. +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:
+ ++ If a then b, if b then c, if c then + undesirable d. ++ +
Indeed, this type of logic is fallacious, but it is often confused with the +reductio ad absurdum, 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:
+ ++ If a then b, but if a then also undesirable c + and d. ++ +
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.
+ +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 reductio ad absurdum, not the +Slippery Slope Fallacy.
+ +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.