By Uthman Akinbola
[15/04/13]
Suppose allowing an Action
A (which is not objectionable) leads to an Action Z, which is objectionable, then one can argue that Action A should not be allowed, since it
leads down the slope to the objectionable Action
Z. This is the ‘Slippery Slope Argument (SSA)’.
SSAs are characterised by the fact that – we are less than perfect in making
second-order distinctions between the good (unobjectionable) act and the bad
(objectionable) act.
In other words, any slippery slope argument presupposes
that:
We may not be able to make distinctions or abide by the
distinction made between the unobjectionable and the objectionable.
The statement above is what David Enoch called the slippery
slope argument’s Essential Premise.
Action A is good in itself, while Z is bad
(objectionable);
But
A may lead to Z, thus A should not be allowed –
The
Essential Premise is implied.
David Enoch further stressed that the essential premise is
not just presupposed by an SSA alone, it is also a causal agent in the slippery
slope process, and this means that when the causal story of a slippery slope
situation is told the essential premise will be a part of that story.
He thereafter constructed an SSA
against the use of SSAs.
Observations
(i) David Enoch’s result implies that everybody would
always be able to make distinctions between the unobjectionable and the
objectionable, and abide by such distinctions. This is not true, as human
beings are not endowed with the same strength of mind.
(ii)
(The result of) his treatise negates SSAs, the tool
(SSA) he used is also negated.
No comments:
Post a Comment