It can also be interpreted as the people on “the other side” having given, and given, and given constantly since time immemorial, and anything that goes in the other direction is simply a start on establishing a compromise with some moral equilibrium. Yes, that means shifting the current status, and those who have constantly had their own way for so long they think it’s a God-given right will see it short-term as a loss leading to more losses, but that doesn’t look at the larger picture of the needs of society as a whole.
Sometimes the “slippery slope” is something that must be climbed, not something to fall down.
The Slippery Slope (sometimes called the Fallacious Extension, the Snowball Argument, or the Domino Theory) is formally known as an Appeal to Indirect Consequences, and that name pretty much self-documents why it is a fallacy.
Simply stating that X might lead to Y and Y to Z, when it is in fact reasonable that they might, is not a slippery slope. If it were, then deductive logic itself is fallacious on those very grounds. The problem with a slippery slope arises when relations are exaggerated or consequences are only indirectly attributable.
Here is some pretty good coverage of it from a page at San Jose University. The writer gives some examples of when a causality argument is a slippery slope and when it is not.
It doesn’t seem silly to me. Maybe I just didn’t express it properly. As for expounding, Lux Fiat and Libertarian have done the heavy lifting for me. Basically, Slippery Slope is defined a fallacy, just as murder is defined as a crime. Just as not all homicides are considered crimes, not all arguments from consequences are fallacious Slippery Slopes.
As we’ve also seen, whether one feels the consequences are exaggerated or not depends on the values applied. So it’s not simply a matter of logic, but of opinion. Perhaps this is why such disagreements are harder to resolve.
So, in essence, there are two types of slippery slopes: The Deduction, and the Fallacy.
When it comes to guns, there is a minority of pro-control advocates who are fervently in favor of a total gun ban. This minority also supports many of the non-total-ban laws and proposals. Following that, why is it a fallacy to fear that new gun laws - laws which are perceived by many to be simply fluff, feel-good legislations - can ultimately lead to a ban?
Whoever said that the going would get tougher? It sure seemed easy as hell in New York and Washington, D.C.
Did I mention another aspect that validates the Pro-Gun fear of the Slippery Slope phenomena is the fact that their fears have already been realized in certain areas?
I’ve never seen it put that way, but I don’t see anything wrong with what you’re saying. Deduction does follow a “slope” of sorts as each implication “slides” into the other.
Deduction (with Induction Axiom):
History suggests that, with few exceptions, power corrupts. If you elect John Goodperson to office, it is likely that he will become corrupt at least to some degree.
Fallacy (with Indirect Consequence and Exaggeration):
Although Congressman John Goodperson, a 20-year congressional veteran, has never been involved with corruption to any degree whatsoever, it is just a matter of time before he turns into a tyrant because, as everybody knows, power corrupts.
As for expounding, Lux Fiat and Libertarian have done the heavy lifting for me. Basically, Slippery Slope is defined a fallacy, just as murder is defined as a crime. Just as not all homicides are considered crimes, not all arguments from consequences are fallacious Slippery Slopes.