When is the slippery slope argument invalid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter goodcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

goodcatholic

Guest
I was debating online over same sex marriage a few years ago. And the criticism came that I was just using “the slippery slope” argument as if that is some kind of inferior thinking only used by scare-mongering numbskulls.
If we let same sex marriage pass, it will allow gay activists to push for more and more rights. And then throuples can marry and finally someone will want to marry their pet. Education programs will be allowed to promote homosexuality in the name of anti bullying agendas. And so on.
Then recently euthanasia is becoming a debating topic. If we pass it, then this will allow for abuse. Some older people might be pressed in to choosing euthanasia as a favour to those watching them die.
I don’t see anything wrong with slippery slope arguments. They seem to apply to any issue. Maybe some of you more educated folk can point out what is wrong with the slippery slope argument.
 
There is nothing wrong with slippery slope arguments as long as they are argued with logic.

The issue is when people jump from the top of the slippery slope straight to the bottom without discussing stages in-between.

It also fails when people use the Slippery Slope argument with feelings and emotions.

It has to be laid out logically and with logic backing it up.

I hope this helps.

God Bless.
 
Last edited:
Slippery slope arguments are never valid. They are always invalid. They can’t be applied with logic.

Validity has to do with the structure of an argument. Slippery slope doesn’t work because the structure doesn’t lead to conclusions that are sure. For example, the argument “if you allow X, how long until You happens?” Y isn’t entailed by X at all. There is no logical connection. (In terms of actual logic).

“You allow your kids to eat candy? How long until they’re doing heroin?!” That’s the same logical structure as “if you legalize gay marriage, how long until polygamy?!”. And they’re both invalid.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
While you can have an argument that says, “if P then Q; if Q then R; if R then S” and so on, using a slippery slope-style argument as a logical argument doesn’t happen often, because it would have to be shown that the conclusions necessarily follow.

There’s often a tenuous connection between one point on the slope and another, or the argument assumes a specific set of circumstances without a real reason implied besides “it could happen”. When looking at a slippery slope argument it often comes across as “I think S will follow from R which will follow from Q which will follow from P, so P must be rejected” without putting forth any kind of substantial support as to how exactly one will lead to another or why.

To be clear though, I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with suggesting that certain things could follow in sequence from another. You’d just need to provide good support and the argument wouldn’t be, logically speaking, “valid.”
 
Last edited:
Rhubarb said:
Slippery slope arguments are never valid. They are always invalid. They can’t be applied with logic.
Click to expand...
Well a lot of Christians are using them. Some pretty educated ones as well with theology/philosophy degrees.
What about the gradual deterioration of morals and values since the Sexual Revolution? Is that fiction? Is it logical to use as further proof that SSM is just another step in moral decline?
 
lol

You’re first example of a “slippery slope” argument is one that has proven unequivocally correct.
 
Slippery slope arguments are not, as people here have said, valid. They are never valid. That means that the conclusion never can be deduced from the premises.

However, some slippery slope arguments that predict the future could be convincing, insofar as the future predicted is genuine bad and the argument gives genuine reason to believe that the proposed action will lead to that bad future.
 
So same sex marriage is legal in America now. Has that changed anything?
I think there are have been some significant changes in Canada since legalisation. Like Christian kids being bullied at school for not accepting homosexuality. And this was predicted. The slippery slope is occurring. They were right. Religious freedoms are not being respected.
 
An invalid argument can still lead to a true conclusion. Validity isn’t truth. But an invalid argument doesn’t demonstrate the connection between the premises and the conclusion.

So a slippery slope argument can seem to describe something. But due to the argument being fallacious, the reasoning is bad.

Going to my example again, I’d bet most heroin addicts did indeed start with candy. But candy wasn’t causal to their heroin use. And plenty of people eat candy who have never touched hard drugs - in simpler terms, candy use doesn’t necessarily lead to heroin use.
 
Rhubarb said:
Going to my example again, I’d bet most heroin addicts did indeed start with candy. But candy wasn’t causal to their heroin use. And plenty of people eat candy who have never touched hard drugs - in simpler terms, candy use doesn’t necessarily lead to heroin use.
Click to expand...
what about marijuana leading to harder drugs? is that illogical?
 
It is not so much slippery slope as it is mentality.

Currently the slippery slope of you give an inch they take a mile is occurring because of exploitation of naive mindsets.

Right now people are putting aside faith as a foundation for morals and placing instead what they see fit as “good”.

Add to that each generation wants to be “virtuous” and fight what they see as the modern oppression.

Next is the basic message of good and love in society portrayed by media is that good is what you feel instead of a mindset.

Next is political parties looking for the next oppressed group for virtue signaling.

Add to that people are walking away from any kind of churches for guidance.

So people are walking into a spiritual civil war without protection and have opened themselves to moral relativism on what is good.

So it feels good to basically virtue signal for the latest oppressed group thus I am a good person. Really basic mindset and unfortunately at odds with those of faith.

We have objective truth based on spiritual bedrock established by the creator of life. They have relativistic feels that look for the next reward.

So the slippery slop here is more a well greased mindset carefully positioned into hell by the evil one and his demons. Remember it is not against flesh and blood we face but principalities and powers.

Pray for these people, they will need it.

Peace
 
Rhubarb said:
But an invalid argument doesn’t demonstrate the connection between the premises and the conclusion.
Click to expand...
You don’t seem to understand the difference between a logical and a historical chain.

That there are theoretically justifications for e.g. homosexuality being okay that won’t go any farther, that doesn’t change the fact that the leap will be made by society.
 
It depends what you mean by “illogical”. It’s illogical in the sense that the logic is invalid.

Nothing about legalizing marijuana entails legalizing harder drugs.
 
That’s a different matter entirely. I would agree that certain things seem to move a direction through history. But that doesn’t make an argument of logic. The historical chain isn’t explained by a slippery slope argument. Though sometimes they seem to describe the chain.
 
If X will in actual fact lead to bad effects, it’s perfectly reasonable to oppose X on that ground.
 
A slippery slope outcome is only possible when there is an inability of a free agent to judge the objective morality of an act. If the free agent has reasonable certitude through an informed conscience that an action and subsequent similar related actions are morally justified, then a slippery slope wil not occur.

In one sense, the slippery slope argument is a limit concept or asymptotic. In other words, those making the argument express a fear that the character of a particular act, though morally justified, is too similar to acts which would not be morally justified.

The fear is not unfounded. Only take a closer look as the tendency of human beings to abuse freedom and we can see why there is such concern and why the slippery slope argument may be valid.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top