SLIPPERY SLOPE counterargument
The slippery slope counterargument is another name for the argument of gradualism and direction. It consists in saying that such a controversial action, A, apparently convincingly supported by such and such arguments, should not be accepted, even if it seems reasonable, because, if it were, the same principles and arguments could be repeated, now to argue for another action of the same kind A+, which is much more controversial, and then for another action A++, which one would find quite unacceptable. In practice, accepting A removes all possible limits, “once you start, you can’t stop.
The slippery slope counter-argument is based on the precautionary principle, which aims to avoid the risk of expanding the decision made.
In a debate on the legalization of drugs, a participant proposes the legalization of cannabis:
AC. — [Legalization, or rather domestication] will not eliminate the problem of drugs. But it is a more rational solution, that will eliminate the mafias, reduce crime, and also reduce all the fantasies that feed drug use itself and are part of drug marketing.
The opponent counters this pragmatic argument with a slippery slope argument,
You legalize cannabis, fine. Then cocaine, then opium, then heroin… And what about crack? You have got to legalize that too. And then ice, and then new products, all the nastiness that man is capable of creating. They will have to be legalized as they come along, otherwise the black markets will organize themselves around the products that remain prohibited.
Le Nouvel Observateur [The New Observer][1], October 12-18, 1989
For a refutation of the same position based on its perverse consequences, see pragmatic argument; for a refutation based on the very formulation and definition of the project, see related words.
2. The slippery slope refutation is based on the following operations
Question: — What should we do about the drug problem?
S1 — We should legalize hashish, for this or that reason.
Opponent S2 is reluctant to accept this suggestion, even though the reasons given by S1 are not entirely unacceptable. However, S2 refuses to engage in S1’s reasoning process on the basis of the following analysis of the situation.
(i) Consider the broader graded category that includes the objects in question, see categorization; classification:
The category “drugs” includes cannabis, cocaine, then opium, then heroin, crack, ice and so on.
Cocaine is worse than cannabis, … and ice is worse than crack.
So, cannabis is the low point, the weak point through which one enters the graded category of drugs.
Note that this graded category is open to the worst products, as noted by the generic clause « and all the nastiness that man is capable of creating ».
(ii) An evaluation
The decision to legalize cannabis may be controversial, but the legalization of heroin would clearly be unacceptable, and the legalization of crack cocaine would be unthinkable, even outrageous. This gradation reflects gradation (i).
(iii) A driving mechanism
The decision to legalize cannabis is related to the decision to legalize cocaine, opium, etc.; the same question will inevitably arise about these harder drugs:
Should we legalize cocaine? Should we legalize opium?
The legalization of cannabis would set a precedent; the same arguments used to justify the legalization of cannabis (“eliminate the mafias, reduce crime, and also reduce all the fantasies about drug use”) could well be used to legalize cocaine, opium, even crack and ice. Given the success of these arguments in justifying the legalization of cannabis, it would be almost impossible to dismiss them if they were to be used to justify the legalization of cocaine, etc. By accepting A, one has taken a decisive step toward accepting A+ and A++.
(iv) Conclusion: Let’s reject the legalization of hashish
The structure of the slippery slope argument parallels that of the argument from waste:
Slippery slope: Don’t start! if you do, you won’t be able to stop!
Argument from waste: Since you started, you must continue!
The gradualist strategy and the slippery slope argument consider a hierarchical class of elements, see gradualism. The question is should the status of these items be changed?
The gradualist favors a change of status, and advocates a gradual, progressive dissolution of the existing hierarchy.
The opponent believes that the status of the top elements cannot be changed in any way, and uses a slippery slope argument to counter the gradualist by opposing any change, however slight, in the status of the lower elements.
The driving mechanisms invoked (often implicitly) at level 3 can be very different:
— Psychological: “To steal an egg is to steal an ox.
— Organic, causal: The slippery slope label is metaphorical, and clearly illustrates the physical movement of an ever-accelerating physical fall. One could also think of a domino effect, where the first domino to fall pushes the second domino down, and the importance of each falling domino becomes greater and greater.
— Strategic: Bad intentions can be attributed to the proponent. The opponent may admit (as he implicitly does in our example) that the proponent is well-intentioned, that her stated goal is indeed her authentic goal, and that she does not see the extreme consequence that could result, see motives and reasons. In this case, the proponent is portrayed as a naive or idealistic advocate, who doesn’t see the consequences of what she is advocating, but still maintains her moral integrity. This development reflects Hedge’s recommendation, not to attribute hidden and manipulative intentions to the adversary (sixth rule for honorable controversy, see rules §2.2).
Nevertheless, with a polemical intent, the advocate could be portrayed as a Machiavellian character developing a gradualist strategy, with the manipulative intent of implementing progressively the most extreme measures, starting with the relatively benign one. Cannabis would be the bait that initiates a priming strategy.
[1] Le Nouvel Observateur is a French weekly political and cultural newspaper.