(Open-Ended) I feel like "slippery slope" isn't actually a logical fallacy, people just use that as an excuse to dismiss valid concerns. You? - eviltoast
  • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.caM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    So… it isn’t ALWAYS a fallacy. In its purest, a slippery-slope argument is of the following form:

    “If A, which some people want, is done or allowed, then B, which most people don’t want, will inevitably follow. Therefore, let’s not do or allow A.”

    The fallacy occurs when that form is not fleshed out by sufficient reasons to believe that B will inevitably follow from A, such as in the following examples:

    • “The US should put the Ten Commandments into schools. If they don’t, then everyone will be worshipping Satan within a few generations."
    • “We’ve got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they ban one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be banning all books!”

    In these examples, the conclusion does not follow deductively from the premise. Nor is any reason given to believe that a chain of events set in motion by the act described in the premise will inevitably lead to what’s described in the conclusion. Heck, the above examples are not even good inductive logic.

    So you’re absolutely correct in saying that not all slippery-slope arguments are fallacies, it just takes logic in between, and that’s something a lot of people struggle with.