Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Slippery Slope

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics

Abstract

In global bioethics, the slippery slope argument has been used in such issues as abortion, legalizing marijuana, physicians having to disclose their HIV status, euthanasia, and gene therapy. Its uses in ethical controversies on the latter two topics have been most prominent, and the main examples treated in this entry are slippery slope arguments about euthanasia and gene therapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bashford, A., & Levine, P. (2010). Introduction: Eugenics and the modern world. In A. Bashford & P. Levine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of eugenics (pp. 3–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beardsley, M. C. (1966). Thinking straight. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corner, A., Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2011). The psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, W. (1995). Can human genetic enhancement be prohibited? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 20, 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govier, T. (1982). What’s wrong with slippery slope arguments? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 12, 303–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtug, N. (1993). Human gene therapy: Down the slippery slope. Bioethics, 7(5), 402–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kneale, W., & Kneale, M. (1962). The development of logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Launis, V. (2002). Human gene therapy and the slippery slope argument. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 5(2), 169–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rachels, J. (1986). The end of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (1994). Debunking the slippery slope argument against human germ-line gene therapy. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 19(1), 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saliger, F. (2007). The dam burst and slippery slope argument in medical law and medical ethics. Zeitschrift fur Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 9, 341–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thouless, R. H. (1930). Straight and crooked thinking. London: English Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (1992). Slippery slope arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Further Readings

  • Schauer, F. (1985). Slippery slopes. Harvard Law Review, 99(2), 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Burg, W. (1991). The slippery slope argument. Ethics, 102, 42–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volokh, E. (2002). The mechanisms of the slippery slope. Harvard Law Review, 116(4), 1026–1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Research on Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Ave., Windsor, ON, N9B 3P4, Canada

    Douglas Walton Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Douglas Walton Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas Walton Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Duquesne University Center for Healthcare Ethics, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

    Henk ten Have

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry

Walton, D. (2014). Slippery Slope. In: ten Have, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_394-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_394-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05544-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation