The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Slippery Slope Arguments in History: Aristotle
As I noted in my introductory post today, I'm planning on serializing my The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope article; and in between the substantive posts, I'll be posting some examples of slippery slope arguments from various famous sources (and responses to such arguments). It's mostly for fun, though partly to remind us about how deep these arguments run; here's the first, from Aristotle's Politics:
In well-blended constitutions therefore, if care must be taken to prevent men from committing any other breach of the law, most of all must a small breach be guarded against, for transgression of the law creeps in unnoticed, just as a small expenditure occurring often ruins men's estates; for the expense is not noticed because it does not come all at once, for the mind is led astray by the repeated small outlays, just like the sophistic puzzle, 'if each is little, then all are a little.' This is true in one way but in another it is not; for the whole or total is not little, but made up of little parts. One thing therefore that we must guard against is this beginning ….
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Artistotle's ideal is not how the world works. In the real world it's always a question of where to draw the line.
With guns, nobody is advocating universal confiscation, and nobody is arguing putting assault weapons into the hands of every 12-year-old.
Even with abortion, nobody is arguing unlimited-up-to-moment-of-birth, and nobody is arguing for a death penalty for second-month miscarriages.
This is just false. Of course some people are arguing for universal confiscation and abortion up to (and sometimes beyond) birth.
What’s the point of pretending they aren’t?
CA, NY and VA already have laws that allow abortion for any reason up to moment of birth.
Not true.
In New York, only up to 24 weeks, except if the fetus is not viable or the mother's life is in danger.
Public Health Law 2599-bb.
That was any easy one to know over. You are not worth the time to cite CA and VA.
How come you left off "or health"?
Because he knows that "health" means mental health so effectively no limit
Yes, it was a rhetorical question.
He left it off to mislead.
The slippery slope is sometimes stated publicly as something else. Like the fake limits the lib states put on it but can be waived for almost anything AND can't be criminally charged if violated.
Similar scenario for guns only in the reverse. Guns aren't illegal but we've added so many "common sense" restrictions that you really can't get one
The phrase is a direct quote from Roe. If the health care professional writes a fraudulent affidavit as to health, she could lose her license. Not hard to imagine an angry spouse/boyfriend calling in a report.
"fraudulent affidavit as to health"
No NY prosecutor or licensing board would do anything and you know it.
As wreckinball also notes, court cases include just about anything as "health".
You just intended to mislead. Lying by omission.
No NY prosecutor or licensing board would do anything and you know it.
...unless it could somehow be related to Trump.
With regards to New York, you're correct. However, there are a number of states and districts where there is no legal limit on the age of abortion. Including New Jersey, New Mexico and of course, Washington DC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_New_Jersey#:~:text=Abortion%20in%20New%20Jersey%20is,of%20women%20for%20having%20abortions.
Here's a nice ad for 3rd trimester abortions in Washington DC.
https://dupontclinic.com/services/abortion-after-26-weeks/
I'm not sure that qualifies as an ad.
But how common do you think those are, and under what circumstances do you think people decide on a 3-day procedure?
Joe was just stating that we should outlaw 9 mm's . So that pretty much eliminates almost all handguns.
Joe is a big fan of shotguns.
What did Aristotle say? No idea. He was the Ivy indoctrinated dipshit of his time. Obtuse gibberish passed for intelligent even in those day.
No matter where you draw the line, there's going to be someone who pushes for moving the line a little further in whatever direction.
This is of course false as some politicians have advocated for just that.
However, most "gun control" zealots realize that calling for that would be political suicide so they don't openly advocate for that. Instead, they advocate for "small reasonable steps" that they hope will eventually result in banning and confiscation of all arms in private hands (except for the hands of police and politicians of course).
Zeno had a perfect mathematical proof that slippery-slope arguments are invalid. Atalanta never reaches the end of the path, Achilles never passes the tortoise, the arrow never reaches the target.
QED.
If you buy that, then there’s a perfect mathematical proof that straight edge and compass construction proofs are invalid.
The proof shows that you can’t square a circle (construct a square the same area as a given circle) with a straight edge and compass.
Therefore, you can’t construct anything. It’s completely useless. Totally invalid. Euclid was totally wasting his time fooling with the things.
QED.
Also, there’s a proof from Godel that the axioms of arithmatic are completely invalid and aren’t worth diddly.
WHOOSH!
Zeno had a perfect mathematical proof that slippery-slope arguments are invalid. Atalanta never reaches the end of the path, Achilles never passes the tortoise, the arrow never reaches the target.
"And St. Sebastian died of fright" (Jumpers, Tom Stoppard)
Arguments are either good or bad, not good or bad based on what you call them.
Slopes can be slippery or not slippery or sometimes slippery. Dismissiveness isn’t a counter-argument.
Yes, and Aristotle seemed to have it right this time.
*This* time.
The new slippery slope is "common sense gun control"
That’s really more of an ad hominem. Saying your proposals are "common sense" implies that anyone who disagrees is alien to the common people or is stupid. It says essentially nothing about the proposals themselves.
Gun controllers don’t talk about specifics because gun controllers are almost perfectly uninformed about guns and people who own guns.
And when they do talk specifics, they inevitably end up sounding like morons. See Biden's comments on banning "high caliber" 9mm pistols.
They'll rip your lungs out Jim.
Bad news for law enforcement.
Philosophers worry about a slippery slope.
Ronald Reagan's female co-workers worried about a gipperly grope.
As I said in my comment on the introductory posts, slippery slope arguments are often completely valid in a framework where the thing to be guarded against is fundamentally evil, bad in any quantity.
The Nazis took several years of propaganda and increasing disabities on Jews, gradually removing them from social contact, before they finally felt comfortable killing them off. And they were hardly alone. People who introduce really bad things often do so gradually, letting the public adjust before they press further.
The idea that of we give the bad folks an inch, they’ll take a me is sometimes true.
The problem with Arostotle’s use of the argument is that small expenditures are simply not always and inevitably completely and inherently bad in the way that (say) Nazis are. Some are justifiable and indeed necessary. So it’s much easier to justify allowing expenditures up to a point but not past it.
I think that in order to have a valid slippery slope argument, the thing argued about has to be inherently and fundamentally bad even in small quantities. That’s often not the case. Many things are quite tolerable in small quantities and a big problem only in large ones. But not everything.
As others rebutted in your comment to the prior post, if there is already consensus that the thing to be guarded against is "bad in any quantity", that's not and can not be a "slippery slope" because no one is going to get on that particular slope in the first place.
The "slippery slope" only arises where one party thinks that A is a good idea but the other party thinks A is a bad idea because it will lead to B. It is not necessary for the other party to think that A is inherently bad, only to think that B is bad and that the path from A to B is inevitable.
Really? How did the Nazis get into power and do the holocaust if nobody got on the slope in the first place?
And since the argument can be used in both directions, how did we get to Brown v Board of Education or the Civil Rights Act if everybody had remained vigilant about lynching at the slightest hint of uppitiness as the Louisiana True Democrat editorial had advocated?
To clarify, the person making the slippery slope argument regards the thing as universally and obviously bad, even in small quantities. However, not everyone necessarily will.
In the prior post, Eugene provided the following definition of a "slippery slope":
In the quoted passage Aristotle argues that small breaches of the law (which may go unnoticed) must be prevented because multiple small breaches constitute a "large" breach of the law ("for the whole or total is not little, but made up of little parts"). The totality of small breaches is not simply "a lot of small breaches," but rather it is something unique (a large breach), which is composed of small breaches.
How does Aristotle's claim fit the definition of Slippery Slope that was previously provided? Who finds it appealing when a person (making decision A?) commits a small breach of the law? And how does this person's decision increase the probability that others will bring about decision B (and what is decision B supposed to be in this example?).
Good point.
Yeah, it's almost as if this Aristotle goy didn't read the definition Eugene gave in that other post before he wrote his book.
"Who finds it appealing when a person (making decision A?) commits a small breach of the law? And how does this person's decision increase the probability that others will bring about decision B (and what is decision B supposed to be in this example?)"
This sounds like classic broken windows theory. Where a series of small offenses lead to a disregard for the law, which increases the occurance of larger offenses. Many people don't think those small offenses should be prosecuted or enforced against.
1. The "might find appealing," I realize now, was a little vague; I've replaced with "might find appealing (or at least not highly objectionable)." That's what the article itself makes clear, but I realize my excerpt didn't. (Indeed, many slippery slopes happen when people don't care about the first step A, and thus don't stop it, but then step A helps bring about step B.)
2. In any event, though, I think the small breaches that Aristotle points to often are appealing to people: There's a good reason given for departing from the law; it's on balance therefore a good thing, despite the violation of the law. (That's especially so when the law refers to customary law, as it often did in Aristotle's day; small changes might be seen as positive evolution of the custom.) But people miss the fact that these small changes put together could lead to something considerable bigger and therefore worse.
In any case, there'll be a lot more about all that soon, especially the "small change tolerance slippery slope" (the particular mechanism that may best fit what Aristotle was discussing).
An example of a desirable infraction of the law might be speeding. Tolerance to a little bit a speeding might be considered desirable because it allows people to be more punctual in the face of extenuating circumstances. However, greater amounts of speeding may result in more traffic accidences with proportionately less benefit to punctuality.
Some of the schools in my area have a ridiculous 5mph speed limit. Except it's not ridiculous. They know that drivers will drive at Limit+10mph, and they tolerate a limit of 15mph. Hence if they post 15mph, drivers will drive at 25mph. If they post 5mph, drivers will drive at the desired 15mph.
"Make a fence around the Torah" (Mishnah Avot 1.1)
So, no soy sausage substitute?
They're ok if you put the empty package next to the food - "marit ayin". The House of Hillel permits it with no package on display when being consumed at home but the House of Shammai disagree (as usual).
It seems to me that there are two distinct concepts.
1) Allowing this one small thing will lead to a larger thing, and a larger thing, and a huge thing.
2) This one thing is tiny, a grain of sand. So is the next, and the next, and eventually you have a sand dune, and that's a huge thing.
The distinction that I'm drawing is in whether the size of the thing is expected to increase, or just that the sum of numerous tiny things is a big thing.
It is reasonable in principle to advance a slippery slope argument if the modest change sought makes a subsequent major change more likely. But "more likely" does not equal "likely". And the hurdle that the slopists have to clear is showing that indeed the modest change does make the major change likely. This is rarely done.