'Slippery slope' arguments: when are they valid?

Great Debates
1

In this post, Sam Stone gave an account of the step-by-step reduction of the right to own and use guns in Canada.

UncleBeer replied:

OK, I don’t get it. One for-instance of a slippery-slope sequence of events validates it as a general argument?

As I understand it, the gist of a slippery-slope argument is that if you give 'em an inch, they’ll gather steam and just keep going from there, until they’ve taken everything there is to take.

Well, let’s try one:

Top Federal income tax bracket in the 1950s: 90%
Top Federal income tax bracket in the 1960s and 70s: 70%
Top Federal income tax bracket in the early 1980s: 50%
Top Federal income tax bracket in the late 1980s: 28%

Sure looks like one of them slippery slopes to me. But for the past several years, the top bracket was up to 39.8%. I don’t think I’ve just proven that slippery-slope arguments are never valid.

It doesn’t seem like they’re always valid, nor does it seem like they’re never valid. Sometimes step n really does lead to step n+1 in a sequence, in politics as well as mathematics. And, with both, sometimes the induction step fails: we’ve all heard the term backlash.

In fact, here, ExTank raised the question of whether accumulated opposition to Clinton-era gun control cost Gore the 2000 election, as others have asserted.

So: how do you know whether you’re in a situation where:

(a) each step in a political direction makes further steps in that direction almost inevitable (slippery slope),
(b) whether you’re in a situation where each step hasn’t much more or less likelihood of success than the one before it (normalcy), or
© any step in a particular direction increases the unlikelihood of further steps in that direction (backlash)?

2

A shorter term would be “straw man”.

3

I think that “inductive politics” based slippery slopes are generally valid. This is generally in the “most times” meaning, not that I’ve made a general case for all slippery slopes.

I’ve often agreed that people whio just cry “slippery slope!” are missing something; I think many s.s. arguments are pretty valid.

What I would call a political slippery slope would be more aptly named erosion, heh. Laws are made bit by bit that don’t change the situation drastically at any step. Every other year or so another one is stacked on, then stacked on, then stacked on. A path, they say, is layed one stone at a time. As an addendum to that: yep, and sooner or later we will most likely have a completed path.

I call it erosion because in effect it is freedom that is being stripped away by the slow but steady stream of legislation.

4

Here is my take:

In almost every political debate, the front line fighters for both sides involve a small minority of the population. Most people don’t care that much or are too busy or have other causes they are more passionate about.

Normalcy occurs when both sides are balanced and don’t have enough power to push back the other side. They go back and forth with it being a very passionate fight for the few directly involved.

When one side is winning and pushing back the other side, this causes the winning side to run into more resistance from people who were on the sidelines but become more alarmed as they see principles they believed in erode. This strengthens the losing side and may result in another stalemate or a slower rate of loss.

A backlash can occur when a winning side runs into a large group of people coming in from the sidelines joining the losing side causing them to come under tremendous pressure.

I think this slows down the rate of change to a less damaging level and gives cultures time to adjust and so may be a ‘good’ thing.

I don’t think there are too many true slippery slope situations and that argument is way overused.

Blink

5

Er, let me expound. The “slippery slope” argument, by its nature, rejects any possibility of compromise, even though compromising is how society functions. It implies that no position other than that taken by its user can be reasonable, since allowing it would lead to complete “defeat” - and it doesn’t matter what the alternative position is, those taking it must be the “enemy” and are thereby automatically demonized.

An example is thinking of the government of a democratic country as being a would-be-tyrannical “them” that must be resistable, instead of the means by which we all work together in a society. But such a fantasy is necessary to maintain the validity of the “slippery slope” argument in the minds of its users.

The “slippery slope” argument is therefore indistinguishable from simple fundamentalist religious zealotry. Its strength must be recognized, but it need not be respected as valid.

6

Well, the slippery slope analogy is an especially good analogy becuase it qualifies itself.

The validity of the argument is going to depend on

  1. How steep the slope is

  2. How slippery it is

  3. How much momentum you pick up from that first step

For example one may make the slippery slope argument that letting your kids chew on a toothpick leads to an oral fixation and a need to look cool that leads to smoking.

While one may admit that there is a slope there (for purposes of discussion,) one will have to concede that it’s not very steep. That is, you need a lot of pushing to keep things moving down the slope. Also, it’s not very slippery as it doesn’t require that much energy to derail the momentum at some future point.

So, as a slippery slope argument, it’s not a very good one.

On the other side of the coin you may make the argument that it’s wrong to allow a toddler to have whatever he wants. That this will lead him to be more self centered, and as he/she grows older their wants will become larger and more difficult to fulfill, that they will not develop the ability to defer gratification, make choices, and take care of themselves, but will become dependant and unproductive and when their thirty years old they’ll still be drinking your beer, sleeping on your couch,and wrecking your car.

Spoiling your children is essentially a slippery slope argument, but a valid one IMO, as while the slope is not steep it is very slippery.

The argument against trying a first cigarette also uses a valid slippery slope, that is both deep (lung cancer) and very slippery (addiction.)

Hope that helps.

7

A straw man is a different type of argument.

In order for a slippery slope argument to be valid, one would have to show that things like A often do lead to things like B. In other words, you would basically have to show that there is reason to believe that there is a causal relationship between the ends of the slope.

I recall in The Joy of Work, Scott Adams lampooned the slippery slope argument as “if you let the barber cut your hair, the next thing you know, he’ll start lopping off your limbs.” That is certainly the reductio ad absurdam version of a slippery slope argument.

8

Sorry, I couldn’t resist. Actually this seems like a quite interesting topic.

IMHO it’s seldom valid. E.g.

  1. My wife won’t vote for a pro-live Governor, although the Supreme Court controls abortion law.

  2. Some gun advocates object to any and all registration, because it could lead to confiscation. (In fairness, I guess this may have heppened somewhere, but I don’t see it in the US.)

  3. The ACLU objects to a moment of silence, which could inevitably lead to a theocracy. Suuuure!

Areas where the slippery slope has been a problem include reductions of civil liberties and growth of government power, such as affirmative action. Forty years ago, quotas were a necessary evil – to be used temporarily to overcome past racism. Like chemotherapy for cancer. But, many people today think that a.a. is desirable in itself and should be retained permanently. I am pessimistic that we’ll ver get rid of them.

In fact, much civil rights law that was appropriate when applied to Blacks has been expanded to far less needy groups, such as Jews. (FWIW I think many of these laws are counter-productive, and that we Jews were lucky to overcome anti-Semitism before civil rights laws applied to us.)

Campaign finance is another area where we have already enacted signifcant reductions in free speech and we are considering more of them.

9

I see we’re off to a good start here, and thanks especially to Scylla for some very clarifying thoughts, IMO.

Here’s my favorite valid slippery slope - the abolition of slavery:

The slaveowning states had held the balance of power in the Congress throughout the antebellum period, and were able to elect the President as well, thanks to certain long-dead electoral devices (see U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, paragraph iii). Once they lost their control (Kansas admitted as a free state, Lincoln’s election), the banning of slavery from the territories was an inevitability, and would have ultimately led to the banning of slavery altogether, once 3/4 of the states were free states (though that would’ve taken awhile, since there were 15 slave states in 1860). Slippery slope - and the slave states knew it.

To use Scylla’s language, the ground didn’t start sloping until after that first step - the antislavery forces’ attaining enough power to block slavery’s expansion. But after that, the ground tilted considerably. It wasn’t too slippery, perhaps - it would have taken into the 20th century, in all likelihood, to bring an end to slavery absent secession - but it was steep, and the end was inevitable if the Union hadn’t been sundered.

10

I think a big problem is that, if you concede that some slippery slope arguments are valid, then doesn’t that place you on a slippery slope whereby all such argumets will eventually be valid. :smiley:

11

For a slippery slope argument to be considered valid the claimant needs to provide evidence that some form of positive feedback will occur. In other words the factor that produces the initial change in the system will be enhanced by the change itself, and thus produce an ever larger effect.
To experience what is meant by positive feedback try
tapping on the brakes of a moving automobile while simultaneously attempting to move the seat forward. Bad things will happen as the forward movement of the seat causes you to press harder on the brake.
-DO NOT ACTUALLY TRY THIS, IT IS VERY DANGEROUS !

12

mhendo - you’re right - I’M DOOMED!!! :wink:

13

I’m not sure of your intent here, RTF. Are you asserting that I believe a slippery slope is in place in respect to all government actions? I assure you, that is not the case. I only contend that the slippery slope is the true and inevitable (barring a societal sea-change) course in the case of gun control. There are many who claim the slippery slope argument, applied to gun control is a fallacy, and that it does not occur. Sam’s post gives the lie to that, and all I did was acknowledge it. Additionally, there is much other evidence that bears out my contention, most of it in the words of the leading figures of gun control advocacy themselves. Since I’m not interested in car-hacking this thread down the gun control road, I’ll not post it here unless you insist.

14

Well, I actually think most gun control actions don’t really qualify as a slippery slope.

Nobody who smokes their first cigarrette plans on dying of lung cancer.

In the case of gun control, there’s naturally not much of a slope, and it’s not that slippery.

The problem is is that there’s a whole bunch of guys with bulldozers, excavating a slope, and another whole bunch of guys greasing the slope with the intention of severely restricting or removing our right to bear arms.

It’s a planned slippery slope, it’s not really a slippery slope at all. It’s a trap.

15

I don’t think so… in fact, I think the “compromise” part is exactly what causes political slippery slope feelings!

“We don’t want a total gun ban, we just want to get rid of new assault rifles.”

“We don’t want a total gun ban, we just want to stop the purchase of assault rifles. You can still have them.”

“We don’t want a total gun ban, we just want to make it more difficult to have one.”

“We don’t want a total gun ban, we just want to know everyone who has one.”

“We don’t want a total gun ban, we just want everyone who owns one to be liscenced or turn it in. For safety, you see?”

It seems to be the case that in every political compromise based on ethical considerations, compromise is actually the wrong word to use. One side clearly wins, and the other side clearly loses. They just don’t lose much at each step, so anyone who points out such a trend (yes, see, trends are slippery slopes) will be accused of seeing black helicopters. “No one wants to take away your gun, man.” :rolleyes: Coulda’ fooled me.

16

waterj2, yes, it is a form of straw man. It distorts differing views so they can be refuted more easily.

erislover, the examples you’re citing are indeed examples of compromise, since they don’t clearly lead to an inevitable later result that can be considered unacceptable to a reasonable person on either side. That is, unless one is already attuned to automatically seeing any such proposal as creeping whatever.

The rest of ya’s: The key aspect of the story Sam has told is that these restrictions were voted on and agreed to by the people. Those who are unhappy about it can recognize the nature of democratic action, and try to make a more convincing case next time. Even if you think Da Gummint is a “they” instead of a “we”, “they” didn’t do it. Sam used the word “frightening”, I believe - but what’s frightening about democracy and social compromise in action?

Scylla, good clarification about matter of degree. But, as Squink adds, it’s still incumbent upon the user of a “slippery slope” argument to not only clearly predict an end result, but to demonstrate its inevitability, not simply assert it as being obvious. If it were obvious, there wouldn’t be a discussion in the first place.

17

I disagree. It merely presupposes further results from accepting a certain argument. In my opinion, it’s less dishonest than a straw man argument, where the opponent’s argument is deliberately distorted. In a slippery slope argument, the argument is over the final result of the opponent’s proposed course of action.

18

So it seems like most (or all) people agree that the slippery slope argument can be true or false in a given instance, depending on practical considerations. I too agree with this.

I would just note that in cases such as the gun control issue, there is especial reason to worry about the slippery slope because of widespread suspician that those pushing various gun control issues are already plotting to eliminate all guns, and are going about it in a step by step manner. (Similar considerations influenced pro-choice opposition to the recent bill against harming a fetus). This is to be distinguished from cases in which the steps being taken are not part of an organized push in a particular direction.

I would also like to note that the “slippery slope” argument is to be distinguished from the similar-sounding-but-intrinsicly-different “where do you draw the line” argument, which is never (or almost never) valid, IMHO.

19

Here is a specific anecdotal example of how a “slippery slope” argument can be quite valid. It might not be inevitable that every change or compromise invites a fall down a slippery slope, but there are cases where the first step does start the change.

Twenty years ago a treatment facility for mentally handicapped people had a policy that mechanical restraint was an unacceptable practice, and could not be used in any situation except drastic need for medical reasons to prevent injury, or allow treatment of life threatening conditions. It required a specific order from a physician for each use of the device, one hundred percent monitoring of the individual restrained by two people and a very strict schedule of release and exercise during the period of restraint. It could not be ordered for more than 24 hours for any reason, could not be immediately reordered without personal review by the facility director. The real life result was that it was never even suggested except in extreme conditions, and every possible alternative had already failed.

At that time it was decided at the state level that the cost of implementing and monitoring such practices in the medical facilities serving prison populations was to high. The regulations were changed, and that change applied to all state medical facilities, including the treatment of non-criminals. The changes eliminated the necessity of the second person in attendance, and allowed extended time periods during which the procedure could be repeated without new authorization. No other changes were suggested, it was simply a “bureaucratic reform” to eliminate unnecessary paper work.

The use of mechanical restraint was not frequent in the first few years at this particular facility. However it went from zero to several times a year. In the next few years the need for immediate review before repeated reliance on the procedure was relaxed to a quarterly review by staff, rather than an immediate personal review by the director. A few years later the responsibility for such orders was expanded to include non-medical clinical practitioners. The use of mechanical restraint became infrequent but routine in specific cases.

In the last decade the use of Mechanical restraint at this facility has become routine and frequent in many specific cases, is reviewed along with ordinary treatment plans by teams of providers, and requires only a standing order describing the circumstances under which it can be used. The actual facts are that it is often used inappropriately, is seldom monitored even at the level that the relaxed standards require, and is often ordered by assistants to clinical specialists who sign the orders after the fact.

Two months ago a restraint was used inappropriately at least three times as a convenience by staff members who have no particular reason to believe that such a thing is not completely ordinary. Two of these cases included “orders” given by unlicensed people to execute the procedures, and no one even questioned the right of those people to make the decision. The facts of real life are that it happens all the time now, and most folks don’t even think that is a bad thing. It saves time and money.

I told the director twenty years ago that we would be slapping cuffs on people for no reason, and doing it regularly if they changed the rules. He said that was not possible, and that my argument was unrealistic, there was no slippery slope. Two people facing dismissal on charges of ignoring rules they didn’t know existed are wondering what the hell the fuss is over; it was only a few minutes that they used a procedure that they have seen used for hours. No one even wonders how it got to be this way.

There isn’t always a slope, and it isn’t always slippery, but you ought to check it out, because you can’t slide back up the hill.

Tris

“I believe in general in a dualism between facts and the ideas of those facts in human heads.” ~ George Santayana ~

20

By definition (my definition, anyway), Slippery Slope is always a fallacy. If it’s valid, then it’s not a Slippery Slope, but a proven fact. Of course, this can only be determined retroactively. Therefore, we have our first clue to whether or not an argument is a fallacious Slippery Slope:

1.)It projects forward into the future. For definitional purposes, a chain of events cannot be retroactively labeled a Slippery Slope.

2.)The ultimate consequence is distantly removed from the issue at hand. In the gun control scenario, claiming that trigger locks will lead to citizens overrun by a tyrannical government is too remote. Claiming trigger locks will lead to homeowners unable to defend themselves against burglars is acceptable (though not neccessarily factually valid).

3.)The ultimate consequence is an attempt to change the subject. A Slippery Slope argument is one which attempts to put one side in the position of defending against an undesirable outcome, shifting the debate away from the matter at hand. For example, claiming that keeping late-term abortions legal will legitimize infanticide. We won’t know until it happens. But we’re not talking about legalizing infanticide today (though that might be a semantic argument for some).

An argument that projects a consequence that is plausibly a direct result of today’s policy change is NOT a Slippery Slope.