SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTS: A CASE STUDY ON HUGH LAFOLLETTE'S VIEWS

Q: How can I download an article?

To download an article from SID, first log in to the site, search for the article title, and click on the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I download an ISI article?

To download an ISI article on SID, enter the keyword or article title in the search bar, view the relevant results, click on the desired article, and select the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I access the SID database?

To access the SID database, visit SID.ir, create an account, and log in to access scientific resources.

Q: Is downloading articles from SID free?

Some articles on SID are available for free, while others require payment. Details are specified on the article's page.

JAHED M.; KAVANDI S.

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Journal Paper

Paper Information

Journal: Bioethics Journal Year:2014 | Volume:4 | Issue:13 Page(s): 29-53

Download Full-Text

Persian Verion

View:

3,425

Download:

Cites:

Information Journal Paper

Title

SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTS: A CASE STUDY ON HUGH LAFOLLETTE'S VIEWS

Author(s)

JAHED M. | KAVANDI S. | Issue Writer Certificate

Keywords

SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTSQ3

PROBABILITYQ3

NECESSITYQ3

MORALITYQ2

Abstract

One of the most popular tools for evaluating ideas in ethics is SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTS. The simple formulation of them is in the following form: 1) If we permit the action X, then this gradually results in performing action Y.2) Action Y is morally wrong.3) We should not permit action X (Consequence). Moral philosophers have discussed their accurate structure, various forms and their validity. One of moral philosophers in contemporary era that did search about this subject is Hugh Lafollette. He believes that central element in these arguments is in their first premise, but not specified and that is the PROBABILITY of the consequence, for this reason, PROBABILITY should be inserted in their consequences. Not inserting the PROBABILITY in consequence of the arguments is a kind of neglecting - and we think it is a fallacy - and inserting it results in annihilating the convincing of them. In view point of him, if any argument is formally similar to SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTS, but there isn' t the element of PROBABILITY in it, the argument isn' t slippery slope argument, but it is straightforward induction generalization or straightforward causal argument that both are valid. Considering the Lafollette's analyses, we can say when the argument consists of PROBABILITY, the argument is invalid and when it consists of NECESSITY, it is valid, but it is no longer slippery slope argument. This essay first, introduces Lafollette's views, and then indicates the weakness of them, and defends of this idea that regarding some conditions, these arguments are valid and can be used in ethical debates.

Cites

No record.

References

No record.

Cite

APA: Copy

JAHED, M., & KAVANDI, S.. (2014). SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTS: A CASE STUDY ON HUGH LAFOLLETTE'S VIEWS. JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS, 4(13), 29-53. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/231039/en

Vancouver: Copy

JAHED M., KAVANDI S.. SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTS: A CASE STUDY ON HUGH LAFOLLETTE'S VIEWS. JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS[Internet]. 2014;4(13):29-53. Available from: https://sid.ir/paper/231039/en

IEEE: Copy

M. JAHED, and S. KAVANDI, “SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTS: A CASE STUDY ON HUGH LAFOLLETTE'S VIEWS,” JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS, vol. 4, no. 13, pp. 29–53, 2014, [Online]. Available: https://sid.ir/paper/231039/en

Related Journal Papers