the slippery slope

I posted this on DailyKos, so I'm putting it here too. Maybe not the most compelling, but I'd been thinking about it for a while.

I know most people don't consider debating a rhetorical device like the slippery slope entirely relevant. But having heard this technique used and abused so many times in so many different environments, I had to get this off my chest. The use of this argument is particularly relevant given the way it is being used in two pertinent issues: the so called "right to life" and the torture scandals in our detainment camps.

The slippery slope is an argument under which the arguer equates an action with its logical extreme extension. This is clearly bullshit, because it fails to recognize our ability to take action in a given situation under those particular circumstances.

This argument is siezed upon by the right-to-life extremists, who claim that as soon as we kill a little bundle of cells, then we're on the fast track to killing people. The obvious fallacy here is that we can differentiate between unborn children, little bundles of cells and full blown adults. The problem is that every single debate can be cast in terms of two different slippery slopes: what about the slippery slope of government intervention in the case of abortion? What else can the government regulate? So given this, we have to take the conflicting priorities of individual liberty and the sanctity of human life, and arrive at decisions on the basis of each individual case.

This argument is siezed upon by the right-to-life extremists, who claim that as soon as we kill a little bundle of cells, then we're on the fast track to killing people. The obvious fallacy here is that we can differentiate between unborn children, little bundles of cells and full blown adults. The problem is that every single debate can be cast in terms of two different slippery slopes: what about the slippery slope of government intervention in the case of abortion? What else can the government regulate? So given this, we have to take the conflicting priorities of individual liberty and the sanctity of human life, and arrive at decisions on the basis of each individual case.

We draw lines on slippery slopes all the time. The drinking age, the voting age and the legality of hunting rifles but not bazookas are all perfect examples. If we took every decision and extrapolated it to the final conclusion of it's intended direction, who the hell knows what would happen? So let's make good law regarding the right to life, reconciling with the right to privacy as best we can, and not worry about how destroying little bundle of cells might lead to us killing full blown adults.

But this isn't all. I think that liberals make the same mistake in their condemnation of torture in Gitmo. The reason we shouldn't torture somebody isn't because we'll be on the fast track to totalitarianism if we do. I have pretty good faith that American democracy will survive. But the fact is, we've drawn lines on the slope that are supposed to govern how prisoners are treated. We can't break away from these because it's the WRONG THING TO DO. Not because we'll become totalitarian, but because we've agreed not to do it. We made the tough decisions about what rights people and prisoners should have, and now our government has to uphold these rights for all people.

And the real slide down the slippery slope only happens when you disobey the lines you've drawn to keep you from sliding down.