The Slippery Slope Argument: Always Fallacious?

The slippery slope argument appears often in political, theological, and ethical debates. Simply put, it argues that accepting one questionable idea leads to a downward slide to worse and worse ideas and finally to an abyss of absurdity. It burdens the first idea with the weight of the last. Political progressives use it. Political conservatives use it. Theological liberals and theological traditionalists love it. And all parties criticize each other for making it! When it supports our side we think it brilliant and when it doesn’t we reject it as fallacious. Which is it?

Both the admiring and dismissive reactions to the slippery slope argument (SSA) are evoked by the claim that the cascade of ideas moving from bad to worse to absurd are linked by necessary relationships so that accepting the first leads inexorably to the last. The paradoxical tendency of the argument to provoke both reactions lies in its confusing combination of very different kinds of relationships used to map the descending cascade: logical, psychological, sociological, and individual tastes and preferences. An SSA is strongest when it relies heavily on logical relationships. Such an argument begins with clear definitions and principles, true premises, and progresses with valid inferences to its conclusions. In politics, theology, and morality purely logical arguments are too abstract to get the job done. In these areas where so much more than truth is at stake—money, pleasure, power, and honor—rarely can people on different sides of a debate agree even on definitions, principles, and foundational premises; and without clarity and agreement on a common beginning point, each move’s validity will be called into question.

Confusion is compounded when psychological and sociological connections are presented as if they were logical inferences. Our understanding of human psychology and particular behavior patterns associated with particular psychological states is derived from empirical experience. Human behavior patterns derived from empirical experience cannot infallibly be extrapolated into future behavior. I doubt this would be possible even if we assumed that the exact same conditions will obtain for a future act as were present for the observed past behavior. But of course, conditions are never the same, and there are way too many factors to take into account, many of them hidden. Moreover, human beings are highly susceptible to influence from the concentric circles of groups to which they belong. Behavior that would not make psychological sense when acting alone makes perfect sense when contemplated in its sociological dimension and vice versa. Lastly, individual human beings differ from each other in ways that are unpredictable from the usual psychological and sociological patterns.

Hence the SSA must be used with caution and evaluated with a critical eye. And yet, it is incorrect to label its every use a “fallacy.” Even at the psychological and sociological levels human behavior falls into repeating patterns that can be somewhat predictive. Also, even though not all human behavior patterns can be described in purely logical terms and people are not logical machines, our minds are structured in a way that we experience dissonance when we are confronted with a tension between our desire for money, pleasure, power, and honor on the one hand and truth, fact, and logical coherence on the other. Hence behaving rationally, which includes tracing out and accepting the implications of one’s basic axioms, is a psychological need as well as a rational duty. Social pressure, too, can drive one to seek praise from others for being courageous enough to take the next bold step in unfolding the logic of one’s foundational premise.

Hence the SSA can be a sound and persuasive argument if proper attention is paid to its different dimensions: logic, psychology, sociology, and individual variability. It cannot show us what will happen if we adopt a particular axiom as foundational, but it can show us what might happen if we do so. And that may be enough to provoke some to engage in serious reflection before they embark on a journey whose downward trajectory leads to the abyss of absurdity.

3 thoughts on “The Slippery Slope Argument: Always Fallacious?

  1. Dr Jonne Smalhouse

    Thank you again Ron.
    You’ve put some very clear pointers, and details about how we should all try to think about thinking. And i appreciate how you’ve tried to keep it readable. Epistemology and rationality are not words for everyone.
    Et in arcadia… in the garden there was a serpent. We do well to remember this powerful metaphor, and also, how very dangerous half-truths and dissimulation always is- a slippery slope. Our redeemer Jesus was having none of it with the devil.
    Interestingly, you say we’re not machines, but in actual fact much of our human thoughts base themselves on measuring ‘differences’, like a difference engine. But you’re correct in the sense of the complexity of our human minds- A.I. is no where near making a copy of the human mind. It still would require a kind of knowing (in a machine) that exceeds computer memory sizes- that is to say that as the acqisition of data for arriving at the correct definition to identify one single entity by difference is magnified by the number of differences an eight month old baby can discern, Bayesian logic dictates that the memory would be the size of a block (before we talk algorithms).
    The freedom that we are rewarded with by becoming a part of God in Christ, sometimes referred to as conversion, epiphany, quickening or ‘born again’ is as much a process of renewing our minds, as having a ‘new’ body. It may be an age old maxim, and one told in the story of the ‘garden’, but all struggle with truth and consequences. It’s that ” if this, then that” issue, often about tge attributes you mention coming back to bite us, time and time again.
    Your brief interludes into the human mind and psychology are welcomed by me. Often times, we’d do much better to think more about how we think, and how we’re going to think in the challenging future. New ways of thinking and understanding the self are part of this.
    It’s my belief that our Christian freedom to think more clearly ( yes! To see the world as it really is….) is a consequence of God wishing us to know Him properly. It’s back in the garden again, sorry– ” Adam, where are you?” Of course, God knew where Adam was; but did Adam?
    Finally, if anyone would like to do so. Then i commend the author who coined the phrase ‘unindividuated’ to you all, and his book, written in 1957 in german, ” The Undiscovered Self” which explains AND predicts the current world situation. Translated into english 1979. Carl Gustav Jung.
    A gentleman until recently, unkown to be working for the U.S. government.
    Gods Blessings.
    And thank you again Ron.


  2. ifaqtheology Post author

    Thank you Jonne! You said it so well, “thinking about thinking.” That is one step above “thinking.” Wouldn’t be wonderful if there were a sudden outbreak of a pandemic of thinking and if thinking about thinking became endemic to the general population. I am interested in the idea of an “unindividuated” mind. For some reason, our minds breath the same atmosphere of intelligence and intelligibility. There must be a dynamic “mind space” in which our individual minds meet and communicate. I’ve not read Jung but I suspect that he also envisions our individual minds as “hypostatizations” of the “unindividuated mind.” Am I right about that? Always good to hear from you! Ron


  3. Dr Jonne Smalhouse

    I remember that he describes the structures (which he based on pre-platonic philosophy- always questioning himself against unnecessary complex arguments) that they were ” -hypostatizations being mere empirical facts without metaphysical colour”.
    And so, if you hadn’t read that, then obviously, A+ for your inference Ron!
    Had you read that?
    Take care (you made me smile with your reply).



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s