The Slippery Slope Confronting Itself

PDF (ελληνικά)
Published: Mar 25, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/ethiki.22646
Keywords:
Slippery Slope Argument; Utilitarianism; Bioethics; Medical Ethics; Euthanasia; Cloning; Applied Ethics; Potential Danger
Evangelos D. Protopapadakis
Abstract

This article examines the "slippery slope" argument (the slippery slope argument), a significant legacy of Utilitarianism in Applied Ethics, particularly within Bioethics and Medical Ethics. The author explores the essence of the argument, which dictates that an ethical choice must be evaluated based on its potential future consequences; if the potential risks outweigh the certain benefits, the choice should be rejected. The text analyzes the application of this reasoning to critical dilemmas such as abortion, euthanasia, and cloning. In the case of euthanasia, the slippery slope argument serves as a primary barrier to its legalization, citing the historical precedent of Nazi Germany as a warning of how initially limited ethical concessions can lead to uncontrolled atrocities. Regarding cloning, it highlights fears of dehumanization and the creation of "Hitler-like" copies. Ultimately, the author turns the argument against itself, suggesting that if the slippery slope reasoning is used to block scientific progress and the potential relief of human suffering based on mere speculation, it may itself be "potentially dangerous".

Article Details
  • Section
  • Articles

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). This license allows others to share and adapt the work, provided that the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal are properly acknowledged.
  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their personal websites) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Avramidis, A. Euthanasia [Ευθανασία]. Akritas, 1995.
Battin, M. The Least Worst Death. Oxford University Press, 1994.
Beauchamp, T., et al. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press, 1994.
Binding, K., and A. Hoche. The Release of the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life [Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens]. Felix Meiner, 1920.
Brock, D. Death and Dying in Medical Ethics. Jones & Bartlet, 1989.
Callicott, J. B. Animal Liberation, A Triangular Affair: Essays in Environmental Philosophy. SUNY Press, 1980.
Callicott, J. B. In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy. SUNY Press, 1989.
Chatzinikolaou, Archim. N. Free from the Genome [Ελεύθεροι από το Γονιδίωμα]. Stamoulis Publications, n.d.
Kimsma, G., et al. "Dutch Euthanasia: Background, practice and present justifications." Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2 (1993): 24.
Mircerlich, A., and F. Mielke. The Death Doctors. Elek Books, 1962.
Pelegrinis, Th. Ethical Philosophy [Ηθική Φιλοσοφία]. Ellinika Grammata, 1997.
Prado, C., and J. Taylor. Assisted Suicide. Humanity Books, 1999.
Russell, B. History of Western Philosophy [Η Ιστορία της Δυτικής Φιλοσοφίας]. Vol. A. Arsenidis Publications, n.d.
Stuart, G., et al. Suicide and Euthanasia. Kregel, 1998.
Tooley, M. "Abortion and Infanticide." In Applied Ethics, edited by P. Singer. Oxford University Press, 1986.
Most read articles by the same author(s)