A slippery slope fallacy is an argument where someone claims that one event will lead to another without evidence. It can be caused by creating causality where none exists, and can be attacked by looking at the weak connections between each link. It can also occur by using two states with a difficult distinction to argue that one state doesn’t exist.
A slippery slope fallacy is an argument in which someone presents a claim that one act or event must ultimately lead to another, with no evidence to support this series of events. The exact nature of such an argument may consist of nothing more than the beginning and ending situations, with few events in between. More elaborate slippery slopes, however, often include numerous steps that will occur to create the transition from start to finish, with no evidence to support the likelihood of these events. A slippery slope fallacy can also occur as a result of someone using two states that have a difference between them, which is hard to define, to argue that a state doesn’t exist.
One of the most common ways this error can occur is through the process of someone creating causality where none exists. This is often seen coming from political figures, who often create a slippery slope fallacy in their arguments. Someone who claims to keep a drug illegal, for example, might argue that “If we legalize this drug, we will legalize another and another, until nothing is prohibited and society collapses.” The problem with this argument, however, is that there is no evidence that the first event leads to the next, nor to the final outcome of the argument.
These different consequences are usually the best way to attack the error. The more links someone uses within such a topic, between the start event and the end, the more often it is easier for someone to attack these links. The weakness of an argument can also be found in how each of these links relate to each other and are relevant to the overall argument. Someone wanting to attack the error would have to look at how many events it takes to move from the beginning of the slope to the end and point out the weak connections between each link.
A slippery slope fallacy can also be created in a second way, based on the connections between two ideas. Someone may argue that since one thing is similar to another thing, in a way that is difficult to define clearly, then one of those two things doesn’t really exist. For example, the distinction between naturally occurring beneficial and harmful plants can be difficult to pin down perfectly without exception. Someone can construct a slippery slope fallacy based on this fact, claiming that this weak distinction means that all naturally occurring plants can be harmful.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
