The Slippery Slope: Tool of the Right Wing

[boatsnguitars]

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy that suggests that taking a particular action will inevitably lead to a sequence of events that will result in a negative or absurd conclusion. It is commonly used in political and philosophical discourse to warn against making changes that could have unintended consequences. It is especially used by the Right Wing/Conservatives/Religious to limit freedoms, and to control people into adhering to the status quo (which traditionally keeps the Right Wing/Conservatives/Religious in power).

In Republican politics, the slippery slope argument is often used to oppose progressive policies, such as gun control or same-sex marriage. For example, in a 2013 interview with Fox News, Republican Senator Marco Rubio used the slippery slope argument to argue against same-sex marriage, saying, "If we open up a door for redefinition of a word that's been defined in the English language for centuries, where does it stop?"

Apparently, he doesn't understand that language always changes.

Similarly, in Christian apologetics, the slippery slope argument is often used to oppose moral relativism and the rejection of traditional Christian values. For example, in a 2012 article for the Christian Post, Christian apologist Alex McFarland argued that accepting moral relativism would lead to a breakdown of morality and ultimately to societal collapse, saying, "When moral relativism takes hold, there is no fixed moral reference point... The slippery slope is a real danger, and societies that abandon absolutes and Judeo-Christian morality are destined to implode."

We see this frequently expressed on this forum.

However, the slippery slope argument is often criticized for being based on unfounded assumptions and for relying on a chain of events that may not actually occur. As philosopher John Corvino notes, "The slippery slope argument... assumes that every step down a particular path is equally inevitable, and that once the first step is taken, the next one becomes impossible to avoid." This is not always the case, and it is possible to take a particular action without it leading to a chain of negative consequences.

Sadly, the slippery slope argument can be used to justify any absurd conclusion, saying, "If slippery slopes are always real and irresistible, then we might as well abandon democracy, because allowing a democracy would allow women and people of color to vote, and that would lead to total chaos and the destruction of society as we know it." (Which was the argument from Monarchists)

The slippery slope argument used against women's suffrage was often based on the premise that giving women the right to vote would inevitably lead to them demanding more rights and privileges, ultimately leading to chaos and anarchy in society. In 1912, former President William Howard Taft famously argued against women's suffrage, stating that "Giving women the vote would be like giving children the keys to the car."

One particularly egregious example of the slippery slope argument against women's suffrage came from an article published in the New York Times in 1915, which argued that allowing women to vote would lead to "the divorce of the woman from the home" and ultimately "the death of the home." The article went on to suggest that women's suffrage would lead to "the revolt of the woman against the man" and ultimately "the downfall of the race."

In the 1940s, the argument against integrating the military was that it would lead to “social equality,” which was believed to be a slippery slope towards the breakdown of the entire social system. Similarly, in the 1990s, the argument against allowing gay people to serve openly in the military was that it would lead to a “breakdown of discipline and unit cohesion,” which was seen as a slippery slope towards a weakened military.



Here are some common themes:
A. Gun Control: "If we allow the government to pass a law requiring background checks for gun purchases, it will lead to them confiscating all of our guns and infringing on our Second Amendment rights."

B. Healthcare: "If we pass universal healthcare, it will lead to government control over our lives and the rationing of care."

C. Immigration: "If we allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the country, it will lead to a flood of illegal immigration and the collapse of our economy."

D. Same-sex Marriage: "If we allow same-sex marriage, it will lead to the breakdown of traditional marriage, the loss of religious freedom, and the acceptance of polygamy and other non-traditional relationships."

E. Marijuana Legalization: "If we legalize marijuana, it will lead to an increase in drug use, addiction, and social decay."

Questions:
1. How do apologists use the slippery slope fallacy to argue against certain moral or social changes, such as same-sex marriage or transgender rights?

2. Can you provide examples of Christian apologetics that employ the slippery slope argument? What are some common themes or assumptions in these arguments?

3. Is the slippery slope fallacy always a logical error, or are there cases where it can be a legitimate concern? How do apologists justify their use of this argument?

4. How do apologists respond to criticisms of the slippery slope fallacy, such as the charge that it assumes a false dichotomy or ignores other possible outcomes?

5. Could the slippery slope argument be used to justify almost any position, no matter how extreme or absurd? How do apologists avoid this pitfall when using this type of argumentation?

[Purple Knight]

I don't think slippery slope is always a fallacy.

Someone who says that laws that help homosexuals open the door to laws that help paedophiles is on shaky ground at best, as there is something definite between a homosexual and a pederast, namely, two consenting adults. This is an example of where slippery slope would be a fallacy.

I think they have a point about moral relativism however. If everyone gets their own morality then anyone can just do whatever they want. There is no concrete line between "I have my own morality and don't have to respect yours, so I can be naked in public," and "I have my own morality and don't have to respect yours, so I am not beholden to 'thou shalt not kill.'"

The line that should divide them is that one is innocuous and one is physically hurting another person, but if each person has their own morality, it doesn't matter. It doesn't have to be religious in nature but there does need to be that fixed point we all must acknowledge has say over us, and we not over it. If that's don't physically hurt people, I think that would be great, but then whoever disagrees, too bad, they're wrong.

[boatsnguitars]

I don't think slippery slope is always a fallacy.

Someone who says that laws that help homosexuals open the door to laws that help paedophiles is on shaky ground at best, as there is something definite between a homosexual and a pederast, namely, two consenting adults. This is an example of where slippery slope would be a fallacy.

I think they have a point about moral relativism however. If everyone gets their own morality then anyone can just do whatever they want. There is no concrete line between "I have my own morality and don't have to respect yours, so I can be naked in public," and "I have my own morality and don't have to respect yours, so I am not beholden to 'thou shalt not kill.'"

The line that should divide them is that one is innocuous and one is physically hurting another person, but if each person has their own morality, it doesn't matter. It doesn't have to be religious in nature but there does need to be that fixed point we all must acknowledge has say over us, and we not over it. If that's don't physically hurt people, I think that would be great, but then whoever disagrees, too bad, they're wrong.

I agree that a Slippery Slope isn't ALWAYS a fallacy. However, what I'm talking about is an almost conscious effort to present fallacious SS arguments as Republicans/Conservatives main argument against certain things, especially "Culture War" issues, because they know that their group responds to fear mongering. (Scientifically proven).

Hence 'Tool of the Right Wing". I think they know their followers respond to fear mongering, and they respond to authoritarian-type leadership, so if they're told that "x" is going to end Western Civilization as they know it, they feel that it's appropriate to vote in people who will overrule the will of the people because they think they are right, and they have the obligation to stand up to threats to their 'way of life'. They know it's effective, so they use it - whether or not it's a fallacy, because they don't care how they get the result: the ends justify the means.

"Ends justify the means" is a distinct Right Wing policy, straight from "The Prince", and is part of their belief that they need strong leadership, strong moral guidance (according to their morals), tough love, the world isn't fair, equality isn't fair because some people are born better and should be able to dominate if they are so inclined, pro-competition, continuous fight, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, individual liberty, government ain't gonna help you, free-market capitalism (everyone fights on the playing field without assistance or handicaps), deregulation (let the buyer beware), Strong national defense and prioritization of law and order.
Emphasis on traditional values, social conservatism, and cultural preservation.
Promoting personal responsibility and self-reliance.
Opposition to excessive taxation and government welfare programs.
Emphasis on strong borders and strict immigration policies.
Support for a strong military and assertive foreign policy.
Preservation of national identity and cultural heritage.
Emphasis on individual rights, including the right to bear arms.

The whole point of the Right is very much a recognition and celebration of "Survival of the Fittest" - ironically - and the way they absolve themselves is through religion (they decide, individually, who deserves aid or who deserves to live, by giving at church or through charity).

[Purple Knight]

The whole point of the Right is very much a recognition and celebration of "Survival of the Fittest" - ironically - and the way they absolve themselves is through religion (they decide, individually, who deserves aid or who deserves to live, by giving at church or through charity).

This is quite emblematic of my own disagreements with the right-wing. They want a free market, and private charity, which does mean they want to decide who gets help because they think churches and private charities make better decisions than the government. I prefer that nobody makes any decisions and everyone gets the same - Universal Basic Income or nothing. I think welfare systems both private and public suffer because the savvy, greedy, expert red-tape navigators push out the genuinely needy, lead to more red tape, and perpetuate the cycle.

I'm quite happy with cancel culture at the moment because it's making right-wingers who told me it wouldn't happen stew in the beds they peed in. They said, free speech no strings, and that's exactly what's happening. In the 90's I was concerned about the power the media and press had, I would point to the Simpsons episode Homer Badman (with the gummi Venus de Milo) which aired in 1994 and featured the press editing footage of Homer going for a gummi candy to make it look like he was molesting someone. I would say, there is going to be one dominant viewpoint, the media will be enforcers, the press can take it all away, get you fired, don't you want restrictions on their power? And they were like nope free speech no strings. And now they're paying the price and I'm kind of happy about it. I predicted cancel culture (or something like it) and I don't want to live this way, and I don't want anyone to have that happen to them, but maybe people have to learn that it can happen to them before they'll oppose it.

The right seems to believe in this survival of the fittest... until harder-working immigrants come to compete with them, and then they want protected from losing their jobs.

They're exactly as bad as the left on this issue, who seem to want a better world for everyone - everyone gets the protection - but are just fine with survival of the fittest when it comes to immigrants with superior skills flooding fat lazy Americans out of the job market. The left loves people who can't compete, and loves to make all sorts of laws boosting those who need a boost, but when Americans genuinely can't compete with immigrants, they're fine with diehard capitalism, winner take all, and the Americans being tossed out on the street.

No one in the game really believes their own philosophy, especially when it comes to their enemies.

I'm neither. I'm fine with either solution. Survival of the fittest means open borders, but also do away with programmes like Affirmative Action and just let the racists be insular and take care of only their own. Helping everyone means rednecks too. If you bus in 50 immigrants to outcompete Cletus for his job, you had better make sure he is taken care of even if you find him despicable.

[boatsnguitars]

They're exactly as bad as the left on this issue, who seem to want a better world for everyone - everyone gets the protection - but are just fine with survival of the fittest when it comes to immigrants with superior skills flooding fat lazy Americans out of the job market. The left loves people who can't compete, and loves to make all sorts of laws boosting those who need a boost, but when Americans genuinely can't compete with immigrants, they're fine with diehard capitalism, winner take all, and the Americans being tossed out on the street.

I agree with your assessment of the Right, but as a Leftist, I had a little issue with this...

I don't think the Left loves people who can't compete, it's that they recognize not everyone is built to compete, and I'd point out that we - as a society - have had ample opportunity to create a society in which competition isn't the measure of value, but virtues like compassion, kindness, fairness, equality, etc. are the "currency".

We are Apes, so it's hard, but we haven't need to be at war for a few hundred years*. In general, the world has had plenty of resources to take care of everyone. To feed, clothe and shelter. And no, with the advent of robots, large automated machines that till and reap our land, or build cars, etc. We have less of a need to work 60 hours per week, or even 40.

Sure, we still have to work hard, but it's not the all out fight for survival it once was. The resources are there - the will of the people is not (except in some notable exceptions like Norway, etc.). There is still an idolization of power, wealth, physical prowess, etc - all those things that have always been there, but that doesn't make it right - or even good for us. Of course, the "elite" tell us it's important but of course they do.

Most of us are average, and have just as much right to live our lives as we wish - which, to most people means a very humble and peaceful existence.

The Left isn't for "Americans being tossed out on the street", or anyone. In fact, they're the only ones trying to get people housing, food and the help they need - across the board, not as the Right would.

The Left still has to play the politics de jour, and they still have to operate in a world that is decidedly Capitalistic, unfair, competitive, etc. If the don't play by those rules, they lose - big time.

And, while I do feel that the Left may be too Idealistic about what can be achieved, I take comfort in the examples like Norway, but also the amazing gains we've made in the last 100 years or so:

Social Welfare Programs:
The establishment of universal healthcare systems in countries like the United Kingdom (National Health Service) and Canada (Medicare).
The implementation of public education systems providing free and compulsory education to all, such as the United States' public school system.
The introduction of social security programs, like the New Deal in the United States, which provided financial assistance to the elderly, disabled, and unemployed.

Workers' Rights and Labor Movements:
The creation of labor unions that fought for better working conditions, fair wages, and shorter work hours, such as the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) in the United States.
The passing of labor laws protecting workers' rights, including the Fair Labor Standards Act in the United States, which established a minimum wage and maximum working hours.

Civil Rights and Anti-Discrimination Legislation:
The civil rights movement in the United States, led by activists like Martin Luther King Jr., which successfully fought against racial segregation and discrimination, leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The legalization of same-sex marriage in various countries, such as the Netherlands in 2001, which marked a significant advancement in LGBTQ+ rights.

Environmental Protection and Climate Change Policies:
The signing of international agreements like the Paris Agreement in 2015, where countries pledged to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The implementation of renewable energy policies, like Germany's Energiewende, which aims to transition the country to sustainable energy sources and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

Universal Suffrage and Democracy:
The women's suffrage movement that led to the granting of voting rights to women in countries like New Zealand (1893), the United States (1920), and the United Kingdom (1928).
The decolonization movements across Africa and Asia in the mid-20th century, which fought for independence and the establishment of democratic systems.

All of these have their critics, but if you talk with an average American Right Winger, they will talk about how great the US is because of many of these things. For example, it would be hard to find a Right Winger - now - who argues against women voting. And, in fact, you will find Right Wingers proudly claiming it as their own policy, despite the demonstrable facts they argued against it. The Right Wing in America is decidedly Left of most Right Wingers in the world. (Compare a Right Winger in America to one in Iran, Eritrea, North Korea, or Afghanistan!).

To me, it isn't close. Leftism is the way to go, and while Idealistic, has become more obtainable with the advent of technology.

It used to be that technology was touted as our savior: that we'd work less, have better things, etc. - and we've been working towards that for all of humanity. In the last 50-100 years, we've seen major shifts in society (the microwave alone has saved countless hours for people slaving over a stove).

We need to start reaping the benefits of all this technology. Not stop innovating, of course, but to slow down from 40 hours per week to 35, get help to those people who need it.
Also, pay people who do help (teachers, emergency workers, etc.) the big salaries, and shut down the cash pipeline to bankers, hedge funders, and others who only live to benefit themselves.

This, of course, is the Idealism I mentioned. To get society to care more about a teacher than a sports star, or a corporate merger lawyer, is going to be a hard.

But, ultimately, the goal of the Left is to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. Not promise everyone that they can become rich - because they can't.


*Meaning, other than people imposing war on us, there hasn't been a valid reason to compete for resources such that we need to massacre millions of people at the whim of our leaders. Take out all the wars in the last 200 years and we'd still have enough food and resources to live - as evidenced by the fact that we are still supporting 8 billion people, and expect to handle about 12 billion under current technology, land, crops, etc. (if memory serves).
The only reason war has been waged is the perception that our lifestyle is threatened, not that we are in actual peril. (For example, Hitler felt the Jews were threatening their existence, but they weren't. Not to mention the held-over angst from WWI and the feeling Germany had that France, England, et al, were threatening their sovereignty.... This isn't a dissertation, so I'll leave it at that).

[Purple Knight]

The Left isn't for "Americans being tossed out on the street", or anyone. In fact, they're the only ones trying to get people housing, food and the help they need - across the board, not as the Right would.

I disagree with this. The Leftists I know personally, actually revel in the fact that Cletus's immigrant-hating, racist butt is going to be tossed in the street and he's going to starve to death. They see him as having made his own bed by being against immigration and for capitalism when he knows he can't work as hard as they can. He'd rather let poor people starve than share, so they see it as fair to dump fifty better competitors on him and have the capitalism he loves, do him in.

I see this as him not loving capitalism (or any system) at all and just trying to stay alive. Consistency is a luxury he does not have. Call it what you like, but he's the one who can't compete and needs a boost, but all he's ever heard from the Left is, you like capitalism so much, work harder and compete, or go die. Hundreds of years of curated, white-favouring racist immigration policy has created a protectionism that made him inferior. His ancestors didn't have to compete with the harder workers, so individuals that weren't suited for 60-hour weeks of backbreaking labour with no breaks were not weeded out.

The Left still has to play the politics de jour, and they still have to operate in a world that is decidedly Capitalistic, unfair, competitive, etc. If the don't play by those rules, they lose - big time.

By the same token, the Right has to play on the board that exists just as much. They have to accept that programmes that redistribute exist, so no wonder they're clamouring to gobble up the windfall for their allies, just as the Left must use capitalism when it's convenient, to hurt their political enemies, if they want to win.

Each side can pretend they will be noble in some distant future when they have won and all enemies have been defeated, but such a future does not exist and thus I tend to say that people who are not noble and ideal-respecting now, will never be, and this goes exactly the same for the Right and the Left. They each simply want to win, and anything goes. We don't have a populace that would be able to perceive that nobility, so the dirtiest dog simply wins, and we have the political system we deserve: Evil versus evil.

It used to be that technology was touted as our savior: that we'd work less, have better things, etc. - and we've been working towards that for all of humanity. In the last 50-100 years, we've seen major shifts in society (the microwave alone has saved countless hours for people slaving over a stove).

I never bought it. Back in the era of Star Trek: TNG, people would talk about how the advent of the replicator would mean a life of leisure. Technocracy. Post-scarcity. It was going to be sooooo good. I laughed, because I knew that somebody was going to own those replicators and it wasn't going to be people who would otherwise have to work for the stuff coming out of them.

To get society to care more about a teacher than a sports star, or a corporate merger lawyer, is going to be a hard.

Impossible, I think. Helpers are seen as lower, and people who exist to serve themselves, and have others serve them, are higher. This goes back to the fact that we're apes and this is just how we do things. I don't think we can change this anymore than we can change the fact that we eat food and walk on two legs. We could change those things, tubefeed everyone, remove legs, but it would require a fundamental redesign of the animal we have evolved into.

there hasn't been a valid reason to compete for resources such that we need to massacre millions of people at the whim of our leaders.

People who over-reproduce. Every reason people think they're fighting for resources because of, is actually downstream of over-reproduction. Without war, we'd probably all have already starved to death. It's not as if people are making war to reduce the population, but if you go back a few hundred years to when wars were over territory, well, why is territory important? Because you need space for your people, to feed them.

This is also why people on the Right hate welfare. They're barely making ends meet, able to have if they're lucky, one child, and they have to look across the street at Welfare Sally who has half a dozen, which will make it exponentially harder for that one child to get resources for their child. If they're supposed to think that everyone is going to get the help, they should have it now, just as much as Sally does. If they're wrongly concluding that the Left is just leaving political opponents high and dry on purpose and it's really a matter of Sally being super-savvy at breaking through red tape, the only way you can correct that misconception is by helping that person across from Sally, even if they aren't as deft about navigating the red tape.

I know people who became conservatives because they went to the welfare office in their time of need, couldn't get helped, and concluded it was because they were the wrong colour. I don't think they're anything close to correct about that, but if these programmes are proudly existing in a competitive world, not helping them, and thus hurting them by boosting others, they have every right to want them abolished.

Socialism tends to collapse if it doesn't implement population control, like China did when it needed to.