Beautiful Travel Pic, Red Beach, Panjn, China, Twitter
From my website review of Pirie on August 4, 2017. This article has been edited for an entry on academia.edu on August 18, 2022.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
The fallacy assumes that a single step in a particular direction, inevitably means that the whole distance will be covered. (189).
But, the truth is, sometimes a single step leads to another and there are cases when it does not. (189).
I agree with Pirie where he reasons:
'There is a limited class of cases in which someone is doomed after a first step...' Stepping off a skyscraper being a good philosophical example. (189).
Based on the author's example: (189).
If we lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 years of age, soon there will be a call in society for the legal drinking age to be lowered to 16 years of age.
This is unlikely as in the 21st Century, the standard age of adulthood is typically 18 years of age. Therefore, it is doubtful there would be societal calls for the legal age of drinking to be below 'universal' adulthood.
The fallacy fails to differentiate between far-reaching actions and limited actions. (190). The author opines that most proposals would lead to disaster if taken too far.
My examples:
If one smokes marijuana, it will lead to cocaine use.
This is true at times, marijuana being documented as a gateway drug, but it is not always the case in every instance. As it is written it is fallacious.
If one smokes marijuana, it may lead to cocaine use.
Reasonable.
(I have no interest in recreational drugs or in the abuse of pharmaceutical drugs.)
---
If one looks at naked women, he/she will become addicted to hardcore pornography.
This can be true, but is not always the case.
Many of us while appreciating female beauty, find hardcore pornography, unsatisfying and visually gross.
From a Christian perspective, the Lord can sanctify a believer to understand that pornography of any type, is a waste of time, as far as meaningful sexual gain. It is also unethical and immoral. The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6: 18 that sexual sin is committed against one's own body.
The fallacy assumes that a single step in a particular direction, inevitably means that the whole distance will be covered. (189).
But, the truth is, sometimes a single step leads to another and there are cases when it does not. (189).
I agree with Pirie where he reasons:
'There is a limited class of cases in which someone is doomed after a first step...' Stepping off a skyscraper being a good philosophical example. (189).
Based on the author's example: (189).
If we lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 years of age, soon there will be a call in society for the legal drinking age to be lowered to 16 years of age.
This is unlikely as in the 21st Century, the standard age of adulthood is typically 18 years of age. Therefore, it is doubtful there would be societal calls for the legal age of drinking to be below 'universal' adulthood.
The fallacy fails to differentiate between far-reaching actions and limited actions. (190). The author opines that most proposals would lead to disaster if taken too far.
My examples:
If one smokes marijuana, it will lead to cocaine use.
This is true at times, marijuana being documented as a gateway drug, but it is not always the case in every instance. As it is written it is fallacious.
If one smokes marijuana, it may lead to cocaine use.
Reasonable.
(I have no interest in recreational drugs or in the abuse of pharmaceutical drugs.)
---
If one looks at naked women, he/she will become addicted to hardcore pornography.
This can be true, but is not always the case.
Many of us while appreciating female beauty, find hardcore pornography, unsatisfying and visually gross.
From a Christian perspective, the Lord can sanctify a believer to understand that pornography of any type, is a waste of time, as far as meaningful sexual gain. It is also unethical and immoral. The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6: 18 that sexual sin is committed against one's own body.
Referencing
WALTON, D.N. (1992) Slippery Slope Arguments, Clarendon Press.
'Slippery Slope (also known as absurd extrapolation, thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose, domino fallacy)
Description:
When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so on, until some ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. Many events are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required -- usually connected by “the next thing you know...”'
---
One of my University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, tutors criticized me for not being more assertive with certain arguments and using the term 'some'. As with all the critiques, wanting to pass, I took it very seriously and implemented changes. However, the slippery slope fallacy is another example of where the term 'some' can protect the correctness of premises.
If some people use marijuana, it may lead to some people using heroine.
'Some' type premises should be presented with caution. From my United Kingdom experience, these types of arguments may be labelled 'assertions' by tutors.
'Slippery Slope (also known as absurd extrapolation, thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose, domino fallacy)
Description:
When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so on, until some ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. Many events are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required -- usually connected by “the next thing you know...”'
---
One of my University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, tutors criticized me for not being more assertive with certain arguments and using the term 'some'. As with all the critiques, wanting to pass, I took it very seriously and implemented changes. However, the slippery slope fallacy is another example of where the term 'some' can protect the correctness of premises.
If some people use marijuana, it may lead to some people using heroine.
'Some' type premises should be presented with caution. From my United Kingdom experience, these types of arguments may be labelled 'assertions' by tutors.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers, New York, Shelter Harbour Press.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
SAMPLES, KENNETH (2014) How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.
SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.
WALTON, D.N. (1992) Slippery Slope Arguments, Clarendon Press.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Slippery-Slope
