The Standing is Slippery

Philosophy ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 553-572 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Wreen
Keyword(s):  
Primitive Streak ◽  
Slippery Slope ◽  
Cutoff Point ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Slippery Slope Argument ◽  
Correct Form ◽  
The One ◽  
General Objection

This paper is a critical examination of the so-called slippery slope argument for the conservative position on abortion. The argument was discussed in the philosophic literature some time back, but has since fallen into disfavor.The argument is first exposed and a general objection to it is advanced, then rebutted. Rosalind Hursthouse's more detailed and stronger objection is next aired, but also found less than convincing. In the course of discussing her objection, the correct form of the argument is identified, and it's noted that rejection of the argument requires finding fault with its inductive premise. That, in turn, requires either (a) identifying and defending a cutoff point other than conception, or (b) not identifying a cutoff point but directly attacking the argument's conclusion. As far as (a) is concerned, all except one alternative cutoff point have severe problems that have been well discussed in the literature. The one that doesn't, the appearance of the ‘primitive streak’, is examined in detailed, but ultimately rejected. As for (b), five different grounds for rejecting the conclusion are identified and discussed, but none is found plausible.Variations on the slippery slope argument, concerning different conclusions that it may have, are then distinguished, related to each other, and critically discussed, and the paper ends with some cautionary remarks about the defense of the argument tendered.

scholarly journals HESS Opinions "Urgent water challenges are not sufficiently researched"

2009 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 905-912 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. van der Zaag ◽  
J. Gupta ◽  
L. P. Darvis
Keyword(s):  
Water Governance ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Environmental Issues ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Adaptation To Climate Change ◽  
Demand And Supply ◽  
Global Demand ◽  
The One ◽  
Water Problems ◽  
Alternative Solutions

Abstract. In this opinion paper we submit that water experts conduct comparatively little research on the more urgent challenges facing the global community. Five specific biases are identified. First, research in the field of water and sanitation is heavily biased against sanitation. Second, research on food security is biased in favour of conventional irrigation and fails to address the problems and opportunities of rainfed agriculture. Third, insufficient water research is dedicated to developmental compared to environmental issues. Fourth, too little research is conducted on adaptation to climate change by developing countries. And finally, research on water governance has a fascination for conflict but too little eye for cooperation and meeting basic needs. This paper illustrates these biases with bibliometric indicators extracted from the ISI Web of Science. There is a stark mismatch between the global demand for knowledge and the supply of it. This mismatch is identified here as a problem that we water scientists must confront and resolve. We still lack a full understanding why this divergence between demand and supply occurs and persists; an understanding that is required to guide us towards aligning our research priorities to societal demands. The paper, however, makes some inferences. On the one hand, we should promote the global South to create its own research biases and allow it to develop alternative solutions. Simultaneously we would benefit from critical examination of our own research practice. Although this paper addresses a critical challenge it does not aim to be exhaustive or definitive. We merely identify the persistence of intransigent water problems as a valid research object in itself.

scholarly journals The corporate takeover of the online public sphere: A critical examination, with reference to 'the New Zealand case'

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lincoln Dahlberg
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Mass Media ◽  
Public Sphere ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The Public ◽  
Multiple Alternative ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The One ◽  
And Control

Much communications research is in agreement about the failure of mass media to adequately facilitate a public sphere of open and reflexive debate necessary for strong democratic culture. In contrast , the internet's decentralised, two-way communication is seen by many commentators to be extending such debate. However, there is some ambivalence among critical theorists as to the future role of the internet in advancing the public sphere. On the one hand, the internet is providing the means fot the voicing of positions and identities excluded from the mass media. On the other hand, a number of problem are limiting the extensiveness and effetivness of this voicing. One of the most significant problems is the corporate colonisation of cyberspace, and subsequent marginalisation rational-critical communication. It is this problem that i will focus on in this article, with reference to examples from what I refer to as the 'New Zealand online public sphere'. I show how online corporate portals and media sites are gaining the most attention orientated to public communication, including news, information, and discussion. These sites generally support conservative discourse and consumer practices. The result is a marginalisation online of the very voices marginalised offline, and also of the critical-reflexive form of communication that makes for a strong public sphere. I conclude by noting that corporate colonisation is as yet only partial, and control of attention and media is highly contested by multiple 'alternative' discursive spaces online.

The Slippery Slope Argument

Ethics ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 102 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wibren van der Burg
Keyword(s):  
Slippery Slope ◽  
Slippery Slope Argument

The ‘Slippery Slope’ argument: Uses and misuses

Think ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 5 (14) ◽  
pp. 43-50
Author(s):  
Arthur Miller
Keyword(s):  
Slippery Slope ◽  
Arthur Miller ◽  
Slippery Slope Argument

We are often warned against stepping onto ‘slippery slopes’ — dangerously slick slides leading down to where the really bad stuff lies. But, as Arthur Miller here explains, these warnings often exaggerate the risk of a slip.

scholarly journals ‘In This Interregnum’

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 716-734
Author(s):  
Henrique Carvalho ◽  
Alan Norrie
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Transitional Justice ◽  
World Order ◽  
Gender And Sexuality ◽  
Critical Examination ◽  
Legal Studies ◽  
History Of ◽  
The One ◽  
Different Response ◽  
And Control

In this article, we offer a critical examination of the long and rich history of criminal justice scholarship in the pages of Social and Legal Studies. We do so by identifying and exploring a dialectical tension in such scholarship, between the recognition of the role of criminal justice as an instrument of violence, exclusion and control on the one hand and the effort to seek, through or perhaps beyond the critique of criminal justice, an emancipatory project. We explore this tension by examining four areas in scholarship: popular justice, social control and governmentality, gender and sexuality and transitional justice. Relating forms of critique to the historical development of a unipolar political world order from the time of the journal’s inception, we argue that the criminal justice scholarship in Social and Legal Studies positions it, like the world it describes, in a sort of ‘interregnum’. This is a place where the tension between the two poles of emancipation and control is evident but shows few signs of resolution. Each of the four themes displays a different critical perspective, one that reflects a different response to living in a world where legal, social and political emancipation struggles against the weight and direction of history. Critique nonetheless reflects on criminal justice to reaffirm the need for emancipatory change and consider how it may be achieved.

The psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument

2011 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Corner ◽  
Ulrike Hahn ◽  
Mike Oaksford
Keyword(s):  
Slippery Slope ◽  
Slippery Slope Argument ◽  
Psychological Mechanism
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document