nortega/themusicinnoise-site
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add slippery slope blog draft.

Browse Source 
Signed-off-by: Nicolás Ortega Froysa <nicolas@ortegas.org>
This commit is contained in:
Nicolás A. Ortega Froysa 2024-02-12 08:03:49 +01:00
parent 3a9e20a3b5
commit b208768d46
1 changed files with 55 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

55
blog/posts/draft-the-slippery-slope.html Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
<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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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>