Slippery Slopes and Collapsing Taboos
Author: Woods, J.
Source: Argumentation, Volume 14, Number 2, May 2000 , pp. 107-134(28)
Abstract:A slippery slope argument is an argument to this twofold effect. First, that if a policy or practice P is permitted, then we lack the dialectical resources to demonstrate that a similar policy or practice P* is not permissible. Since P* is indeed not permissible, we should not endorse policy or practice P. At the heart of such arguments is the idea of dialectical impotence, the inability to stop the acceptance of apparently small deviations from a heretofore secure policy or practice from leading to apparently large and unacceptable deviations. Using examples of analogical arguments and sorites arguments I examine this phenomenon in the context of collapsing taboos.
Document Type: Regular Paper
Affiliations: The Abductive Systems Group, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, T1K 3M4; E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Publication date: May 2000