The Slippery Slope Argument is NOT a fallacy

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.britannica.com/topic/slippe ... e-argument

Of course there is a difference between correlation and causation, and correlation does not imply causation.

But in the case of the slippery slope, the overall correlation generally speaking for the majority of the cases in which this argument is used, is so strong that it is unlikely that it is not linked to a causality.

If there is a correlation-causation link, the argument is true.
See The Scientific Method.
https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method

One example is the way World War 1 developed. One nation attacked another, leading to a third nation attacking the second, so a fourth nation attacked the third and so on.

Another is the Israeli settlements in Palestine, annexing palestinian territory, one bit after another, since nobody are stopping them.

A third example are the acts against terrorism in the U.S. since 9/11 2001.
People back then said that if these legislations were passed, it would make the U.S. a Big Brother Society in the long run, like in George Orwells 1984.

This is VERY much true today, as these laws lead to the next, and the next, and the next.

I could go on with better examples, but I'm sure we're fine for now.

The same is seen all around the world, from Europe to Asia, to South America and Africa.

It is therefore foolish to claim the Slippery Slope argument to be a fallacy, since the correlation is too strong to deny causality.

We attribute causality with less correlation.

The Slippery Slope is as much reality as Gravity and physical matter.

- Discuss.

Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 07 Jan 2022, 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think you may be confusing the domino effect of actual events with the debate concept of positing that "one small change will inevitably lead to a huge catastrophe so we shouldn't ever do it or anything remotely like it." Personally, I consider them to be different things.

Last edited by KimD on 07 Jan 2022, 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim about a series of events that would lead to one major event, usually a bad event.  In this fallacy, a person makes a claim that one event leads to another event and so on until we come to some awful conclusion.  Along the way, each step or event in the faulty logic becomes more and more improbable.  Example:

"If we enact any kind of gun control laws, the next thing you know, we won’t be allowed to have any guns at all.  When that happens, we won’t be able to defend ourselves against terrorist attacks, and when that happens terrorists will take over our country.  Therefore, gun control laws will cause us to lose our country to terrorists."

Source:  This Excelsior College Webpage 

The conclusion in your example is true, if it had not been for the fact that nations with strict gun control has an efficient military and police, and a non-corrupt government to defend against terrorist attacks.

Otherwise, as you see in countries with little to no guns, and no efficient military or police and with a corrupt government, those countries will fall into the hands of terrorists. See Ukraine after the revolution in 2014, and the Russian backed terrorists in the Donbass region.

The point in my argument is the fact that logic works through axioms. If every axiom is true, the conclusion is also true. In your example, the were axioms missing, and therefore the conclusion might be false in some circumstances.

But generally speaking, the conclusion must be taken seriously.

Anyone can imagine a counter-argument to disprove another argument; but only insofar as that single counter-argument is valid.  This does not disprove the original argument.

Note that the key phrase is "imagine".

Every logical reasoning starts with assumptions known as axioms.

From there, you can deduct a conclusion. If the logical conclusion differs from reality, it is not the logical argument that is false, but the axioms are either false or missing.

The logical reasoning behind the slippery slope for gun control leading to no guns = no defense, is true.
I am pro gun control btw.

: : Ergo, the Slippery-Slope argument IS a fallacy.

Q.E.D.

It's not a fallacy so much as people overuse it and blow minor things out of proportion by treating them as opening the door for The Destruction Of Society.

The slope is rarely as slippery as people treat it.
Look at the past and you will see endless examples of people treating something as a precursor to disaster only for nothing of the kind to happen.

That's exactly what makes it a fallacy. The assumption that just because the chain of events is technically possible, that it must therefore be the only viable result or conclusion.

Well, in Kasakhstan high fuel prices lead to snipers in the streets...
This is NOT a fallacy. It really happens. You just have to open your eyes and read the news.

Or a virus was found in China, and all of a sudden the entire world was in chaos.

I could go on and on.

The fallacy exists so far as it could be used to justify or deny anything, the modern ones I remember hearing that legalising gay marriage would lead to bestiality being legalised.

On gun control, I really don't think that Ukraine having more open gun laws would have stopped Russia from annexing Crimea, rather they probably could have just used it to pain Ukrainian people as violent and dangerous. Not to incorporate a slippery slope back, but the evidence doesn't show people becoming more free and safe the more that random people can get firearms, rather it leads to more violence, by the way that people get more panicky that someone might have a weapon and so shoot first.

When looking at ideas of whether they fall into a fallacy, it is a good idea to look at the steps, that one is not jumping to something ridiculous. Granted that many people don't tend to act logical for even their own self interest that they are not informed on, and a point in the future of progress could look ridiculous further back in time. The best that can be done is to try and have intelligent and informed discussion, rather than just fearmongering that society will collapse if people are doing something that really doesn't impact others.

The take-home message of the "slippery slope fallacy" for me is that when somebody says something of the form "if we allow this (small thing), then we'll get that (big bad thing)," we might do well to check whether the small thing can really be expected to lead to the big bad thing, or whether the speaker is just jumping to conclusions / attempting a dirty persuasion trick. Some actions turn out to be the thin end of a highly undesirable wedge, but many are nothing of the kind.

Well, simply put:

The slippery slope is a fallacy only insofar as there’s bad reasoning behind it. You can’t handwave all slippery slope arguments as post hoc or whatever because causal chains do exist. It’s true that correlation doesn’t indicate causation. But arguments demonstrating a chain of causality are about causation, not correlation. So you can show that something really is a slippery slope and show that it’s NOT a fallacy.

I don’t think you can adequately refer to future events as falling on a slippery slope. You can show that past events are, though, and point to the predicted likelihood that future events fall on a slippery slope. The events leading to WWI, the so-called Powder Keg Of Europe, are an excellent example. Or any time you have a desperate political situation how you can expect tyrants to take power and make life difficult for everyone else. The domino effect of communism spreading throughout Southeast Asia. And I think if you follow the spread of collectivism throughout the world to its logical end, you would see the equivalent of imperialistic isolation and perpetual war. The whole world would basically be North Korea, and rather than saying “Slippery slope! Slippery slope!” one would point to the rise of communism and examine its failures. You can find patterns, in other words, and figure out where one or more governments fall in that pattern and show IF THE PATTERN CONTINUES where they’ll end up. It’s understood in a non-fallacious slippery slope that the causal chain can always be broken. There’s no compelling reason that the pattern must end a certain way. But with slippery slopes, as one progresses along the slope, the more difficult it becomes to break that chain.

An example might be abortion. The outcomes of legalized abortion were quickly and easily realized. Since abortion is almost at the level of being an entitlement, getting rid of it for those who morally object to it is seemingly impossible in the face of so many people who imagine they have a vital need for it (who don’t actually depend on it for life, in other words). You have one crowd who’d say even if a baby is born the mother can just abandon it and let it die. That counts. Then you have others who want to set a definite cutoff line to say abortion can happen now but not later. And then you have those who oppose abortion entirely.

And that’s why there is no slippery slope for reversing Roe. There is only the fear that regulating abortion is a slippery slope to a ban on abortion. The ACTUAL slippery slope is a long list of legislation and court precedents that prevent any court from overturning Roe. To break that causal chain would require something extraordinary. It is not impossible, just unlikely.

I can go along with that.

"If someone does not receive the vaccine, they could die!" is not a Slippery Slope fallacy.

"If someone does not receive the vaccine, there'll be human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, and mass hysteria!  The sun will darken and the moon will turn to blood!  It will be the end of life, the universe, and everything!!" is a Slippery Slope fallacy.

Got it.

No. Not an example of the "slippery slope argument".

A slippery slope is similar to "setting a bad precedent". If we do A, then that will lead to worse thing b, and that will lead to even worse thing C, which will.... So we have to hold the line and not even allow A.

If we allow same sex marriage now...in few years we will be allowing polygamy, and then marriage to animals, and then you will be able to marry a car door, and then....

Same sex marriage is the most common place you currently hear the phrase "but its a slippery slope!" Rightly, or wrongly these days.

But if you wanna apply it elsewhere, like to the covid vaccine issue...



If we force folks to get covid vaccines now...then the government will be forcing folks to eat Vegan tomorrow, and forcing them to do aerobic dancing the year after that.

That would be a "slippery slope" argument.

Or

If we dont force folks to get covid vaccines now...we will have to allow them to run red lights tomorrow, and then to not have mufflers on their cars after that, and then to allow incest, and cooking puppies after that....

What’s wrong with cooking puppies?