|
KMID : 1172020030040010063
|
|
Journal of Korean Bioethics Association
2003 Volume.4 No. 1 p.63 ~ p.87
|
|
|
A Metaethical Approach on “Slippery Slope Arguments” in Biomedical Ethics
|
|
Cho Hyeon-A
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
‘Slippery Slope Arguments’ are arguments from consequences, which arise in biomedical ethical issues so frequently. It is characteristic of all slippery slope arguments that a dangerous outcome of some contemplated course of action is warned of. But the slippery slope arguments is more than just a warning. The dangerous outcome is put forward as a reason for not taking a first step in the contemplated course of action, on the grounds of the consequences that may follow. Despite the major role slippery slope arguments have always played in prudential, moral, political and legal argumentations, they have a bad philosophical reputations. Some texts even refer to them as ‘slippery slope fallacies’, or ‘the slippery slope fallacy’. Slippery slope arguments are open to criticism for logical unclarity and heap of argumentations. After characterizing ‘slippery slope arguments’ and analyzing the pattern of that arguments, I then explore its implications. We can devide slippery slope arguments into two versions of logical and empirical(psychological). Logical versions of slippery slope arguments have the burden of proof which is hard to clear out. I conclude that when we use slippery slope arguments to appose to allow A, we ought to be very sincere so as not to be vulnerable to ‘fallacy of heap’ or ‘fallacy of generalizations’. A slippery slope arguments that is not in accord with the goals of dialogue is an incorrect or faulty slippery slope arguments. But it is not necessarily a fallacious slippery slope arguments. We have to deal with slippery slope arguments in the context of dialogue about practical issues. If we focus on purely logical contexts in understanding and using slippery slope arguments, that is incorrect approach.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
slippery slope arguments, slippery slope fallacies, moral consequentialist conservatism, causal mechanism, context of dialogue
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|