Slippery Slope Arguments
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4079564 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ann Jefferson (0000-0002-1870-1361, Forschungszentrum Jülich, corresponding author), Anneli Jefferson |
| Year | 2014 |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue | 10 |
| Pages | 672-680 |
| Publication date | 2014-10-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Philosophy Compass (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1747-9991 • E-ISSN: 1747-9991 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/phc3.12161 |
| OpenAlex | W1537817736 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 9 |
| References cited | 20 |
Slippery slope arguments are frequently dismissed as fallacious or weak arguments but are nevertheless commonly used in political and bioethical debates. This paper gives an overview of different variants of the argument commonly found in the literature and addresses their argumentative strength and the interrelations between them. The most common variant, the empirical slippery slope argument, predicts that if we do A, at some point the highly undesirable B will follow. I discuss both the question which factors affect likelihood of slippage and the relation between the strength of the prediction and the justificatory power of the argument
Argumentative · Economics · Epistemology · Positive economics · Slippery slope · Ethics in medical practice · Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations · Philosophy · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Slipping on slippery slope arguments
Navigating slippery slopes
The ethically significant difference between dual use and slippery slope arguments, in relation to CRISPR-Cas9
Slippery Slope Arguments as Precautionary Arguments
Ethical guidelines for deliberately infecting volunteers with Covid-19
Danger of Slippery Slopes in Nudge Research
Bisexuality, Slippery Slopes, and Multipartner Marriage
Amazon’s Ring
How to Argue with Questions and Answers
| Citations per year | 1.13 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2018 - 2025 (8) |
| Highly cited | No |