The Slippery Slope Argument: Validity and Consequences

Essay, Pages 3 (698 words)

Views

391

When engaging in a debate against a particular idea or action, one common approach used is known as the slippery slope argument. This type of argument involves taking a consequentialist perspective on the action being discussed, and then projecting potential outcomes, sometimes based on evidence and sometimes not. For instance, one might argue that a teacher should refrain from consuming chocolate ice cream due to two main reasons: the fact that eating chocolate ice cream triggers pleasure centers in the brain, and that it can lead to weight gain.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ The Slippery Slope Argument: Validity and Consequences ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

The stimulation of pleasure centers in the brain has the potential to develop into an addiction.

As a result, the argument concludes that if the teacher were to become addicted to chocolate ice cream, it would eventually lead to a scenario where they would be unable to fulfill their teaching duties. Instead, they would find themselves confined to their bedroom, significantly overweight, spending their days watching television and consuming copious amounts of ice cream.

While the initial reasons presented in the argument hold some validity, the projected outcome lacks substantial evidence to support it. Slippery slope arguments can vary in their validity, sometimes leading to logical conclusions, while other times manipulating the argument to suggest unfounded consequences.

Peggy Noonan provides an example of a slippery slope argument in her discussion of the Terry Schiavo case. Noonan asserts that "When a society begins to believe that human life is not inherently valuable, it sets itself on a dangerous path towards devaluing life to the point of atrocities.

This downward spiral can be observed in historical events such as Columbine and Auschwitz, and is currently manifesting in Pinellas Park, Florida." By dissecting this statement, it becomes evident that Noonan adheres to a Vitalist perspective, which posits that human life possesses intrinsic worth and value. This viewpoint contrasts with a 'quality of life' philosophy, which suggests that life can be morally terminated if it lacks meaningful returns.

It is important to note the absoluteness of Noonan's initial assertion regarding human life, as it lacks a specific definition or standard. From her statement, it can be inferred that she considers every living human body, regardless of its state of consciousness, to fall under her vitalistic viewpoint. The latter part of her statement draws a dire and extreme conclusion by alluding to gas chambers and Auschwitz, insinuating that permitting euthanasia for individuals in vegetative states could potentially lead to mass killings on a catastrophic scale.

Interestingly, Noonan's conclusion finds historical support in the events that unfolded in Germany during the early 20th century. In 1920, a book titled "The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life" was published by Alfred Hoche, M.D., a psychiatry professor at the University of Freiburg, and Karl Binding, a law professor from the University of Leipzig. The book advocated for assisted suicide for patients under specific guidelines and proposed extending mercy killings to individuals with brain damage, certain psychiatric conditions, and mental retardation.

This ideology was embraced by Hitler and various members of the German medical community. By 1938, mentally disabled children were being euthanized through starvation or exposure, and by 1941, euthanasia had become a common practice in German hospitals. The public gradually became desensitized to the concept of mercy killings, leading to its widespread acceptance within a span of two decades. Noonan's argument draws parallels between the mindset of Americans today and that of Germans in the 1930s.

She highlights the tendency of contemporary society to overlook the potential consequences and societal implications of actions such as the euthanasia of Terri Schiavo. While such actions may appear compassionate and justifiable in the moment, history serves as a stark reminder that what begins as a case involving a vegetative individual could pave the way for more controversial scenarios in the future. Noonan's argument is compelling when viewed as a nuanced exploration of history and human behavior. However, when condensed into a brief statement, it may come across as extreme and provocative. While her rationale is sound, it requires a more comprehensive discussion to fully convey its depth and significance.