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.