Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
We must fight against the spirit of unconscious cruelty with which we
treat the animals. Animals suffer as much as we do. True humanity does
not allow us to impose such sufferings on them. It is our duty to make the
whole world recognize it. Until we extend our circle of compassion to all
living things, humanity will not find peace.
4
In analogies we use comparative expressions such as more or less, so and so, like-
ness, similar, near, close,. . . which have and undoubtedly gradual and fuzzy charac-
ter. In fact, the degree of similarity between the analogue and the target gives weight
to the analogy.
5
9.3.2
Slippery Slope Arguments
Another example of fuzziness in bioethical argumentation is the case of slippery
slope arguments. This kind of argumentation resembles the old Arabian proverb: If
the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow. Slippery slope
arguments state that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related
events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small
push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom. That is, taking certain
step may be fraught with indirect results which could eventually turn out disastrous
-not as an unavoidable outcome, but as a quite possible upshot. Slippery slope
arguments could be understood as a kind of presumption: Once that certain step
has been taken, there is a presumption that some kind of pressure towards further
steps may quite possibly be hard to resist, the thus triggered process yielding a bleak
result.
Slippery slope arguments are far from being necessarily fallacious. What alone is
fallacious with some slippery slope arguments is wording them as if they were con-
clusive, non-defeasible or deductively valid reasoning allowing a strong rejection of
the proposal and thus closing the discussion [20]. In Bioethics, slippery slope argu-
ments operate as a kind of 'precautionary principle': Caution in advance, a measure
taken beforehand against possible danger or failure (risk).
6
For example, a typical slippery slope argumentation in the euthanasia debate is
the following:
4
Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965),
The Philosophy of Civilization
.
5
A deep study about the use of analogies in Bioethics is devoted to the case of biobanks [6].
6
Precautionary principle has two main elements: 1.- An expression of a need by decision-
makers to anticipate harm before it occurs. Within this element lies an implicit reversal of
the onus of proof: under the precautionary principle it is the responsibility of an activity
proponent to establish that the proposed activity will not (or is very unlikely to) result
in significant harm. 2.- The establishment of an obligation, if the level of harm may be
high, for action to prevent or minimise such harm even when the absence of certainty
makes it difficult to predict the likelihood of harm occurring, or the level of harm should
it occur. The need for control measures increases with both the level of possible harm and
the degree of uncertainty. The problem with precautionary principle is the spreading of a
culture of fear.
