GRADUALISM and DIRECTION
The argument of direction, or slippery slope argument, is based on the device of stages and is used to counter the gradualist strategy. It is classified by Perelman Olbrechts-Tyteca as an argument “based on the structure of reality” .
1. The device of stages as a general strategy of action
Generally speaking, the process of stages is implemented when the overall goal is judged to be being directly unattainable; it is then divided into smaller, more easily attainable goals.
This process of division corresponds to a to a general strategy of action that is not necessarily manipulative. Experienced explorers explain that if you are lost in the desert, dying of thirst, and trying to reach a desperately distant city (the ultimate goal) you must set yourself a manageable goal, such as the next dune, and then the next cactus, and so on, step by step until you finally reach the distant city.
Perhaps more relevant to everyday life perhaps is the solution to trying to carry a heavy weight. If I cannot carry this one-hundred-pound object, I take it apart and carry each part separately.
Such small but achievable goals can be sequenced, as is the case in any learning process: for example, one first learns to drive on a normal road, before one learns to drive on an icy road. In these different cases, the actor keeps the final goal in mind, in relation to which the partial goals are determined and organized.
2. The gradualist strategy
To get something from another person, an actor can use the process of stages. In this case, the gradualist process should not be seen as an argument but as a deliberately opaque, manipulative strategy, see manipulation.
It is often found to be better not to confront the interlocutor with the whole interval separating the existing situation from the ultimate end, but to divide this interval into sections, with stopping points along the way indicating partial ends, whose realization does not provoke such a strong opposition. (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca [1958], p. 282).
Arguing with the Joneses – The step-by-step strategy, in this second sense, is commonly referred to in sales as the priming strategy:
The newlyweds Jones want to buy an apartment; the real estate agent suggests a modest, perfectly adequate two-bedroom apartment,, and they agree to buy it. Now that the agent has his foot in the door, he observes that a baby is coming soon; so they really need a three-bedroom apartment; The Joneses change their minds and agree to buy one. But the agent observes that Mrs. Jones is developing a promising start-up, she needs a private office; so they need a four-bedroom flat, and so on.
In arguing with the Lord to persuade Him to withhold His wrath against Sodom, Abraham uses such a priming strategy and step-by-step process-a bit manipulative, but praiseworthy nonetheless. The argument is not from the few to the many but from the few to the very few:
[…] Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”
Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?” “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”
Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?” He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”
Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”
Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?” He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”
Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”
When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.
Genesis 18:22-33 New International Version.[1]
Unfortunately, the Lord will not find ten righteous men in Sodom.
3. Argument of direction, or slippery slope argument
The term argument of direction is an alternative name for the slippery slope argument. It is used to prevent the use of a gradualist strategy:
“[it] consists, essentially, in guarding against the use of the device of stages. If you give in this time, you will have to give in a little more next time, and heaven knows where you will stop” (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca [1958], p. 282).
[1] Quoted from www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2018:16-33