Slippery Slope
Michael J. Muniz
When your cable company keeps you on hold, you get angry. When you get angry, you go blow off steam. When you go blow off steam, accidents happen. When accidents happen, you get an eye patch.
When you get an eye patch, people think you’re tough. When people think you’re tough, people want to see how tough. And, when people want to see how tough, you wake up in a roadside ditch. Don’t wake up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of cable and upgrade to DirectTV.DirectTV ad
According to Patrick Hurley in A Concise Introduction to Logic (2012), “the fallacy of slippery slope is a variety of the false cause fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place” (135). The key term here is “chain reaction.” The arguer is attempting to justify her conclusion by drawing a very weak connection among premises.
The DirectTV ad above is a perfect example of how the conclusion (one should upgrade to DirectTV) is weakly supported by the various unlikely chain reaction circumstances that are triggered by the initial premise (getting angry because your current cable company put you on hold).
In recent news, the slippery slope fallacy has been popularized as a subject of interest, especially among cable news outlets with regard to the topic of same-sex marriage. The blogosphere, digital media websites, and so on have in some way commented on both sides of the issue while committing the slippery slope fallacy. The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property Students Action website lists 10 reasons “Why Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Is Harmful and Must Be Opposed” (2016). Reason #9 says:
If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.
The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press: “The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality.”The “slip” that is committed here is that the initial action of ruling in favor of same-sex marriage will ultimately result in cases where the courts will rule in favor of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and so on. There is no strong justification to suggest a direct link between the initial premise and the resulting consequences that follow.
On the other hand, proponents of the same-sex marriage issue have also committed the slippery slope fallacy. On the popular ProCon.org website (a platform to explore both sides of controversial issues) the following case was made in favor of gay marriage:
Denying some people the option to marry is discriminatory and creates a second class of citizens. On July 25, 2014 Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Sarah Zabel ruled Florida’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional and stated that the ban “serves only to hurt, to discriminate, to deprive same-sex couples and their families of equal dignity, to label and treat them as second- class citizens, and to deem them unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society.”
Judge Zabel, in this case, is asserting that the “denial” itself will result in labeling same-sex couples as second-class citizens.
However, it’s difficult to decide when the fallacy has occurred if we’re uncertain that the chain of events will come about. Hurley (2012) notes that “many slippery slopes rest on a mere emotional conviction on the part of the arguer that a certain action or policy is bad, and the arguer attempts to trump up support for his position by citing all sorts of dire consequences that will result if the action is taken or the policy followed (147).
So, if Hurley is right, then maybe the DirectTV ad is accurate if it can be proven true that one does blow off steam when getting angry. And, in that process of blowing off steam, the “angry” person (in this case, he is playing indoor racquetball) gets injured in the eye, resulting in getting an eye patch put on by a doctor. This in turn is followed by showing evidence that when one wears an eye patch, it suggests a degree of “toughness” that triggers other people’s interests (in this case, the “other” people are a group hoodlums interested in a confrontation). Finally, then it must be demonstrated that these particular hoodlums presented are the type to pick a fight with our “angry” person resulting in his lying semi-conscious in a roadside ditch. If all of these events in the chain reaction can be justified, then the slippery slope is not committed. But the nuances and intricate improbable connections between each event still make it difficult to support the ultimate conclusion, which is to get rid of cable.
There are two simple techniques to consider in order to avoid committing the slippery slope fallacy. First, the argument at hand must be examined thoroughly for any sequence of reasoning (or chain of events) that put forth an outcome. Consider the formula: If X, then Y, and if Y, then Z... When implanting this formula, the arguer must ensure that the connections between each proposition are reasonable.
The second technique to consider is to reflect on the reverse connection. In this way, the arguer can posit the conclusion (final outcome) first, then the initial premise can be stated later. In other words, the arguer can present his case backwards to ensure there are no lapses in reasoning or false entailments.
References
Hurley, Patrick. 2012. A Concise Introduction to Logic. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Pro.Con.org. 2017. “Should Gay Marriage be Legal?” July 24. https://gaymarriage. procon.org/?print=true (accessed October 4, 2017).
TFP Student Action. 2016. “10 Reasons Why Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Is Harmful and Must Be Opposed.” August 1. http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically- incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful- and-must-be-opposed.html (accessed October 4, 2017).