Conclusion

This chapter explores the scope and limits of the book’s central claims, extending the argument to other circumstances and norms and describing cases that do not fit the theory. The chapter examines the recent variation between the United States and Europe on the question of torture. The human rights picture in Europe has improved over the past few decades in part because European institutions have been clearer than the United States about prohibiting cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, eliminating the antitorture norm’s specificity problem, and preventing a slippery slope that so often ends with torture. Finally, the chapter broadens the argument by demonstrating how the pervasive belief that autocrats have an edge over rule-bound democracies has tempted certain elected officials to chip away at their own liberal-democratic institutions.

The Slippery Slope Argument in the Context of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

This article analyzes the slippery slope argument and its application to the problem of legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. The argument is often referred to in discussions of abortion, in vitro fertilization, etc., but it has been little developed in the Russian-language literature. This explains the relevance and novelty of this article. The focus is on the ways of representation of the argument in research. It distinguishes its main types: logical (disintegrating into no-principle distinction argument and the soritical argument), empirical (or psychological argument), and non-logical (metaphorical). Each of these types of argument is constructed according to a certain principle and has a number of features and critiques. A common place for criticism of an argument is its focus on the future so that it makes reasoning probabilistic. The logical type of argument is centered around denoting the transition between the original event and its adverse consequences and denotes the action of social factors to accelerate the transition. The no-principal distinction argument implies that there is no moral distinction between the events at the beginning and the end of the slope. The soritical argument involves intermediate steps between questionable and unacceptable practices. The conceptual slope is another variant of the logical kind of argument. The empirical argument illustrates a situation of changing societal values which results in an easier acceptance of morally disapproved practices. The metaphorical argument is used to illustrate the metaphor of slope and the situation of the accumulation of small problems that lead to serious undesirable results. The non-logical kind of argument centers around the routinization of practice, desensitization, and exploitation of unprotected groups in society. Exploitation can be called the victims' slope. It grounds its consideration on the abuse of the practice being administered. Application of the ethical methodology (theoretical-logical and empirical-historical) to the types of arguments and ways of their application allows us to highlight the value component of the argument, to determine its dilemma nature and to correlate it with bioethical principles. The application of bioethical principles to suppress the transition to undesirable consequences is critiqued on the basis of particularly difficult cases in which one is unable to articulate one's decision. The criticism of the argument is built on the probabilistic nature of the reasoning, the lack of reflection on the underlying premise and the lack of empirical evidence. It concludes that the slippery slope argument is incapable of being the only valid justification for rejecting the practices of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

The Influence of Christian Nationalism on U.S. Public Educators’ Speech: Implications from Meriwether vs. Hartop

Public school educators must navigate very complex intersections of the First Amendment’s Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech clauses. The 6th Circuit’s ruling in Meriwether vs. Hartop created a slippery slope that could create a hostile learning environment and be discriminatory speech while trying to balance public-school educators’ sincerely held religious beliefs. This article examines the Meriwether case and court ruling while providing a background of U.S. Christian nationalism and its implications in American public education.

Autonomous Weapon Systems In International Humanitarian Law – Simply Just Another Weapon System

<p>This paper reviews the arguments made by the opponents of the utilization at all of so called autonomous weapons (killer robots), on the basis of alleged inherent non compliance with certain cardinal principles of IHL, against the argument that said weapons or systems, and their use, can be satisfactorily accommodated under existing IHL. It gives an overview of the issues identified by the opponents and the main arguments made in favour of banning autonomous weapons. The author looks at the characteristics of two weapon systems and concludes there are already fully autonomous weapon systems in non contentious use. The author submits that the concerns of the banning authors are not rational, the purported distinctions made between certain weapon systems cannot factually and consistently be maintained and are based on the averred existence of categories of weapons that do not exist. Finally, the author argues that the opponents’ concerns and arguments are in the main and based on the normal uncertainties, inherent in all factually to be determined situations and also on slippery slope reasoning. The author emphasises the established rules of IHL and opines that the same are adequate to regulate the so called autonomous weapons and weapon systems and any liability arising from their use.</p>

Autonomous Weapon Systems In International Humanitarian Law – Simply Just Another Weapon System

<p>This paper reviews the arguments made by the opponents of the utilization at all of so called autonomous weapons (killer robots), on the basis of alleged inherent non compliance with certain cardinal principles of IHL, against the argument that said weapons or systems, and their use, can be satisfactorily accommodated under existing IHL. It gives an overview of the issues identified by the opponents and the main arguments made in favour of banning autonomous weapons. The author looks at the characteristics of two weapon systems and concludes there are already fully autonomous weapon systems in non contentious use. The author submits that the concerns of the banning authors are not rational, the purported distinctions made between certain weapon systems cannot factually and consistently be maintained and are based on the averred existence of categories of weapons that do not exist. Finally, the author argues that the opponents’ concerns and arguments are in the main and based on the normal uncertainties, inherent in all factually to be determined situations and also on slippery slope reasoning. The author emphasises the established rules of IHL and opines that the same are adequate to regulate the so called autonomous weapons and weapon systems and any liability arising from their use.</p>

Kantian Ethics and Utopian Thinking

Is Kantian ethics guilty of utopian thinking? Good and bad uses of utopian ideals are distinguished, an apparent path is traced from Rousseau’s unworkable political ideal to Kant’s ethical ideal, and three versions of Kant’s Categorical Imperative (and counterparts in common moral discourse) are examined briefly with special attention on the kingdom of ends formulation. Following summary of previous development of this central idea, several objections suggesting that this idea encourages bad utopian thinking are briefly addressed: that we cannot count on everyone to follow ideal rules, that even conscientious people disagree in their moral judgments, and that theories that allow exceptions to familiar moral rules create a “slippery slope” to consequentialism.