“… an argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect … an attempt to discourage someone from taking a course of action because if they do it will lead to some unacceptable conclusion.”
Wikipedia
I occasionally listen to talk radio to test my critical thinking. Contrary to what my father thinks, I am not a bleeding heart liberal. I continue to hold moderate to libertarian-leaning views on a range of topics, but what they are is not important because they are fungible. More important than my views are my values, under-girded by a pragmatic philosophical foundation that is secular, naturalistic, and humanist. It is the pragmatist in me that likes to listen to ideas that sometimes diverge from my own to challenge my own thinking.
It was on a ride home the other day that I listened to a radio host put forth a slippery slope argument against a proposed government policy. The policy isn’t important, nor is the argument against it. What is important is to consider the validity of the argument and what it is an argument for.
At its most basic level, the slippery slope is an argument against a particular action or proposed solution. It says, “We can’t do x, because something bad will happen.” If a proponent for an argument is arguing in good faith, they must be willing to accept the possibility that the same course of reason and logic could (should?) be deployed by their opponent in a similar argument against any of their own proposed solutions . This, of course, is where the slippery slope argument falls apart.
You see, the slippery slope argument – as it is commonly applied in political discord – is fallacious. Each side in such an argument can use it for their own cause. In doing they also must ultimately acknowledge that if they are allowed to use the argument in their favor, they necessarily validate a similar argument from their opponent. In doing so, the slippery slope is ultimately an argument for the status quo and nothing short of a lazy excuse for obstructionism.
The lesson? Don’t be lazy. Don’t be intellectually dishonest. Argue in good faith. If you are posed with a dilemma or choice that makes you uncomfortable, it is okay. Stay with it; feel the discomfort. Think about it. Reason through it. That feeling in the pit of your stomach is meaningful: your body and mind are one and the same and when your subconscious is leaning heavily on heuristics, you have a felt sense of something not being right, a sense of something wrong.
But don’t give into that felt sense. It might be right, but it might be wrong. Either way, it is nothing more that an intuitive shortcut, not a rational and well-reasoned solution. It is that gut-feeling, though, that feeds the need for the post-hoc rationalization of the slippery slope argument. For want of another argument, the slippery slope is easy to deploy and quiets the dissonance that you were feeling only moments earlier. But while you might feel better after, you are no wiser for your effort and you are likely to be confronted with the same dissonance again in the future.
Odds are you’ll take the easy way out then too.