Where do slippery slopes live: in conversation, in reasoning or in between?
Daniel Cristian Stancu
Romanian Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 2024, Vol XVIII, Issue 1, pp.29-44, DOI: https://doi.org/10.62229/rrfaxviii-1/3
Published: 13 May, 2026 Download Pdf
Cite as: Stancu, Cristian Daniel : Where do slippery slopes live: in conversation, in reasoning or in between?. In: Romanian Journal of Analytic Philosophy, vol. 18, iss. 1, pp. 29-44, 2024, ISSN: 1843-9969.
Abstract: Slippery slope arguments are arguments that have historically been seen as informal fallacies and are prevalent in discussions of ethics, public policy, and legal reasoning. And while there have been provided a lot of accounts of what a slippery slope argument actually is, there has been no account that has been able to encompass all central features of slippery slope arguments. As such evaluating this type of arguments has been a toilsome endeavor for researchers working in argumentation theory, since there is so little agreement of what exactly one is supposed to evaluate. In this article I aim to offer a way to deal with the issues that have made it so difficult to evaluate slippery sloper arguments. I propose that some progress can be made when it comes to evaluating slippery slope arguments by combining pragma-dialectical theory with soft Bayesian argumentation, in order to account for both normative and descriptive dimensions among which arguments are defined in contemporary argumentation theory.
Keywords: : pragma-dialectical theory, Bayesian argumentation, slippery slope arguments, argumentation theory, arguments from consequence .
Bibliography
Collins, P. J., & Hahn, U. (2017). Fallacies of argumentation. In International Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 88-108). Routledge.
Corner, A., Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2011). The psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(2), 133-152.
Den Hartogh, G. (2009). The Slippery Slope Argument. In H. Kuhse & P. Singer (Eds.), A Companion to Bioethics (1st ed., pp. 321–332). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444307818.ch28
Eemeren, F. H. V., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. De Gruyter Mouton.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2003). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press.
Elqayam, S., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (2013). Rationality in the new paradigm: Strict versus soft Bayesian approaches. Thinking & Reasoning, 19(3–4), 453–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.834268
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007). Hypothetical Thinking (0 ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203947487
Fumagalli, R. (2020). Slipping on slippery slope arguments. Bioethics, 34(4), 412–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12727
Govier, T. (1982). What’s Wrong with Slippery Slope Arguments?. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 12(2), 303-316.
Hahn, U., & Hornikx, J. (2016). A normative framework for argument quality: Argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation. Synthese, 193(6), 1833–1873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0815-0
Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2006). A Bayesian Approach to Informal Argument Fallacies. Synthese, 152(2), 207–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-5233-2
Hinton, M. (2020). Slippery Slopes Revisited. Studia Semiotyczne, 34(2), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.26333/sts.xxxiv2.02
Hinton, M. D. (2017). Slippery Slopes and Other Consequences. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 27(4), 453–470.
https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2017.028
Jefferson, A. (2014). Slippery Slope Arguments. Philosophy Compass, 9(10), 672–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12161
LaFollette, H. (2005). Living on a Slippery Slope. The Journal of Ethics, 9(3–4), 475–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-005-3517-x
Liga, D., & Palmirani, M. (2020). Uncertainty in Argumentation Schemes: Negative Consequences and Basic Slippery Slope. In M. Dastani, H. Dong, & L. Van Der Torre (Eds.), Logic and Argumentation (Vol. 12061, pp. 259–278). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44638-3_16
Lode, E. (1999). Slippery Slope Arguments and Legal Reasoning. California Law Review, 87(6), 1469–1544.
Raffman, D., & Hyde, D. (2025). Sorites paradox. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/
Rizzo, M. J., & Whitman, D. G. (2003). The camel’s nose is in the tent: Rules, theories, and slippery slopes. UCLA Law Review, 51, 539–592. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.352981
Rizzo, M. J., & Whitman, G. (2019). Escaping Paternalism: Rationality, Behavioral Economics, and Public Policy (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139061810
“10 Reasons Why Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Is Harmful and Must Be Opposed.” TFP Student Action, 5 Feb. 2015, tfpstudentaction.org/blog/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.
Van Der Burg, W. (1991). The Slippery Slope Argument. Ethics, 102(1), 42–65. https://doi.org/10.1086/293369
Van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness (Vol. 16). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9
Van Eemeren, F. H. (2018). Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective (Vol. 33). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2023). The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to the Fallacies Revisited. Argumentation, 37(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-023-09605-w
Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Henkemans, A. F. S., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). The Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. In F. H. Van Eemeren, B. Garssen, E. C. W. Krabbe, A. F. Snoeck Henkemans, B. Verheij, & J. H. M. Wagemans, Handbook of Argumentation Theory (pp. 517–613). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5_10
Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014a). Argumentation Theory. In F. H. Van Eemeren, B. Garssen, E. C. W. Krabbe, A. F. Snoeck Henkemans, B. Verheij, & J. H. M. Wagemans, Handbook of Argumentation Theory (pp. 1–49). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5_1
Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014b). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5
Walton, D. (1992). Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198239253.001.0001
Walton, D. (2015). The Basic Slippery Slope Argument. Informal Logic, 35(3), 273. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v35i3.4286