Deliberative Ethics Guidelines

ARGUMENTATIVE PATHS - COMMENTARY

Remark on the slippery slope argument
The slippery slope argument claims that if an action A occurs, then by a gradual series of small steps via the actions B, C, …, Z will eventually occur. But since Z is valued negatively, and therefore its occurrence undesirable, A should not be pursued.

Weakness of the argument:
If this argument is conceived in such a way that the concatenation of successive actions is necessary, it is a fallacy. No link in the chain of successive actions is necessarily implied by the previous one. Some soften the argument by introducing probability. That would be persuasive, if we were capable of assigning a high probability to any passage from A to Z. We cannot do this, since we are discussing possible future actions and events situated in possible contexts that are unknown. It should be noted that the slippery slope argument would be very weak even if we were able to establish the high probability of any steps. To illustrate this, if we accepted the argument, we should also admit a symmetrical argument, called the desirable rack-and-pinion argument. This follows from the rhetorical rule that if you propone an argumentative structure, you must concede the same argumentative structure to your opponent. The desirable rack-and-pinion argument is structured symmetrically to the slippery slope argument, as it propones a chain of possible actions and events. To distinguish these two arguments, however, the latter starts from an initial action to its possible undesirable consequences, while the former begins from an initial action to its possible desirable consequences.

Remark on the precautionary principle argument
According to the precautionary principle argument, if we do not have scientific certainty that the new biomedical results will not harm the environment and that which lives in it, the actions of producing and using them must be cautiously constrained until it is shown they are harmless.

Weakness of the argument:
It should be clear that this argument is very vague. It admits many interpretations, ranging from the most radical (according to which we must not perform any action concerning new biological results until we have the full certainty that they are harmless) to the weakest (according to which it is only a commonsense argument, something like: "be cautious when you create or use something if you are unsure about what its consequences will be"). Often, however, the precautionary principle is applied in accordance with an interpretation provided by those in the position of regulating the situation. If these regulators are ideological, the interpretation and the implementation of the precautionary principle is ideological. The real issue should be the level of precaution that must be taken, given the particular problem and its context.