I am definitely not as succinct as you are (which is why it is probably a good thing that I put this in the philosophy section) but, I agree with you, harhar, that same sex marriage is not 'bad' in itself .. even if it leads or may lead to other forms of marriage to be allowable in future.
(The subject of same sex marriage was/is, by the way, just an example that came to mind because of recent events/news stories .. I am not arguing that at all - not that it is bad nor that it absolutely must lead to anything else - however, it is probable, if we look back, that there is some connection. We can keep using this one or we could choose any of a myriad of others that seem similar today. I personally don't care one way or another about same sex 'marriage' - in theory, it 'doesn't - yet - affect me - greatly' though I think the state it condones could have been essentially achieved using another set of words and 'rights' so I don't quite get why the word itself was so important to those who advocated - sometimes nastily - for it. I disliked their methodology for imposing their argument more than the subject they were advocating for.)
Each 'step' along a route, whether it appears connected or not, should be considered in its own right - I agree.
However, having been 'considered' in its own right (during which, by the way, often many arguments are made that refer back to past sanctioned 'rights' - implying if not proving a 'connection', not to mention that people will also use the forward looking .. 'well at least it is not x, or y, or z' 'argument' - which often, at least in retrospect, may be used to define the 'next step'), once same sex marriage is 'approved' and the effort begins to ensure it is 'normalized' as acceptable, people are then much more 'ready to accept' the possibility that another previously unapproved form of marriage might also be 'ok' enough and should be sanctioned.
For me ... this is not about any individual argument being 'bad' or 'good' - though I think they are often poorly made from a technical point of view - emotions are used more often than pure reason. In this example for instance, if one assumes that same sex marriage is not the problem, the 'problem', if there is one, as I see it, lies in the acceptance and normalization of each new 'idea' along what one might say is a trail/continuum from puritanism to debauchery which in itself probably constitutes a 'slope' - not the badness or goodness of each individual step.
(An aside: Even there though I am sure some would say that this is 'natural progression' along a flat line, not a slope. But, whatever it is ... not all 'progression' is good 'progress' in my opinion. And if it is not 'progress' in a good sense, what is it? Regression? A downward slope to .. where the heck ARE we going? Have we properly (can we or even should we), defined the 'end state' we desire, the final destination .. the place we need to get to? And if we have .. who is the 'body' that has decided they can represent the greater 'we'? And by what 'right' do they hold that position of authority? And on what basis did they make that arbitrary decision? The list goes on and on of the myriad of topics we could pursue surrounding one issue, much less the many that are confronting us today.)
Anyway .. in the term 'slippery slope', the 'slippery-ness' reference is indicative of at least a potential for movement in some direction and subsequently that implies there is or will be acceleration/speed at which further events appear to happen as societal 'acceptance' gains momentum. The argument at each stage, since it tends to include not only references to the past, but, more importantly, an introduction to the future may be flawed in itself, thus in fact, may be causing this acceleration .. I don't know but that is what I suspect.
I agree with the basic philosophical intent (or at least with what I think is intended) that the 'argument' phase should be self contained, and each should be discussed on its own merits without being backward or forward looking, but, that is really not being done much these days from what I can tell.
Beyond that though, it often seems that as each argument/each level/each promoted idea is approved by whatever powers that be, the slope increases very rapidly as one 'descends' ... as people just opt out of whatever little remaining role they may have in the 'approval process' over time since they feel they have no input or control (a sense of hopelessness and uselessness is imposed on the masses by the nature and execution of the process) and a smaller and smaller group of people seem to 'get their way' to accelerate the next greatest idea into the consciousness of those who still feel they have any right to participate - the number of whom grows smaller and smaller at each interval.
There is no 'slope' if there is no 'incline' ... hence there must be at least a perception that steps are a) leading somewhere b) are connected and c) (it seems to me) the 'leading somewhere' is towards something better or worse, smaller or larger, taller or shorter, etc. than the status quo. I rarely, if ever, have seen the slope going up however. And lately we don't even level out for long. The cyclonic suction is too great to stop this 'progress' it seems.
(In earlier generations, I am sure many thought there was a similar phenomenon too .. I don't argue they were not also correct given what they knew at the time .. things SEEM often, in relative terms, to be sucking everyone down rapidly .. however, I think in their day, not so many big issues were being attacked at the same time so perhaps there really IS a difference now .. I will have to come back in 200 years to see if there is anything left of humanity or not I suppose.)
However, to get back to what I think really was why I wrote my original post ... if one uses the term 'slippery slope' (more colloquially) when generally describing a whole course of events/actions/initiatives that seem connected, some which may already have happened and some which seem bound to occur given the direction indicated by the preceding events, is it (technically) incorrect to do so?
Who runs this joint anyway - the philosophers and those who would use them? or the masses who, for the most part, want to just speak in the vernacular? Who has the authority to say .. use this term because this is what we mean by it? Language has been so distorted .. does anyone know any more?
Is it acceptable (in most circles) to use 'slippery slope' merely as a descriptive word for what seems to be happening? This is probably just an exercise in semantics but some take those words very literally (as the philosophical meaning of the term) and will attack vigorously so I seriously am looking for another clear word/term to describe what I mean to fend off those attacks as much as possible - so the issues won't be as clouded.
I was dismayed that I could not immediately find a definition of the phrase 'slippery slope' that allowed for its use in common speech ... all discussions I read focussed only on the strict philosophical argument usage. (And also I was dismayed that the examples used were so political in nature and were so obviously slanted towards 'educating children' as to what a particular political stream wants to promote. I have major objections to that ... and I believe it teaches what to think not how to think and I also believe that 'philosophy' should be about learning how TO think as an individual so I further believe that if this really is the way this is being taught, it is a real (perhaps THE real) problem in today's world - but that is the subject for another thread I guess.)
That said though, I can't think of another word/phrase to use in place of 'slippery slope' as a similarly descriptive phrase but not as an 'argument'. According to (at least) 'philosophers' one should not use the term unless one is making a specific argument (which they claim is fallacious in its essence so it cannot be true and the argument cannot be won).
But, in the vernacular sense, I see the term 'slippery slope' as not really an 'argument' at all .. it is more a statement of what someone believes (in fact, which many in society may believe) to be true given how they perceive the world they know to be 'going'.
So .. in a nutshell .. how does one clearly and quickly describe a series of events/actions, etc. that appear connected and appear as though they were leading in a 'downward' direction - if using the term 'slippery slope' is so critically tied to a philosophical argument that immediately indicates it is fallacious? 'Trend' indicates direction (and connection) perhaps but does it also show 'slope'?
*******************
As to the ideas you mentioned in connection with the concept of 'marriage' ... consent, autonomy and rights ... I also agree in principle - particularly where we are talking about human-human relationships ... but many might say that we have no idea if a pig or goat for instance can or does 'consent' to anything. Do animals see themselves as having any form of autonomy or 'free will' no matter how they live or are forced to live? Who judges that if we have no common platform for communication? If pigs see a puddle to play in and no one stops them playing in it - have they free will (autonomy) to decide whether to play there or not? Are they even capable of 'decision' or do they just actual instinctually? Do we really 'know' for sure which it is?
'Rights' are defined and 'given' by man for the most part although yes, one can argue 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' to be god given - but at least the liberty part (and maybe the others too) is relative anyway these days I think. Do we have the 'right' to define different or even the same 'rights' for the 'non-human' - pigs and goats for instance?
Rights have been traditionally viewed by humans as nebulous at best till written in law but even that is changing it seems .. and 'written law' is something we humans invented anyway. Because we don't speak pig or goat, it is unlikely we have a clue what their laws may be, if any, or what they view their 'rights' to be. (Oh boy, that discussion could really open up a can of worms .. so, I will leave that for now as this truly gets into the world of 'philosophical arguments' and that is not my intent here).
And, laws be darned in today's world anyway. If you can do it without being caught and/or if you can do it and cow others into thinking it is a 'right' at least for some, that apparently is enough to get away with whatever it is they want to do .. and it all becomes a path to 'normalization' .. by tacit agreement by a growing crowd who openly or silently begin to view that step as 'ok' as the promoters move to make whatever it is they want to become a 'right' for all. Most may 'agree' only because the thinking still is .. "hey, we are still 'free'. Just because we have a 'right' doesn't mean we have to exercise it - but we can allow others to if they want to .. why not?" We have the autonomy to decide for ourselves .. ostensibly .. but, in fact, the minority is now making laws that define what 'rights' they have (and therefore what we all must recognize, if not participate in) if they choose to exercise them. In reality .. we would be wise to listen to the voices of yester-wisdom ... the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Those 'wheels' are getting their way more and more as we opt out and shut down - and they know it .. they are using it to their advantage.
I am far from 'religious' but I really wish we would all go back to the basic concepts of what is 'right and wrong' that are voiced in the ten commandments. I believe in our hearts and souls .. most of us know what is right and wrong .. but we are now allowing others to cloud personal judgement in that arena more and more. The commandments cover just about everything that can make society run much more smoothly. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not covet. Complexities injected into the legal system over time have really messed us up. Killing is now only bad 'if' ... stealing is acceptable 'if' ... coveting is more than ok (and grossly advocated by advertisement even) because it may promote ambition - even if that manifests in the ambition to steal from thy neighbour in some overt or covert form. I think going 'backward' in this area that would be a very positive 'forward' move .. back up the slope to sanity. (And I come from a family of lawyers - even though I am not one - a family which believes that laws and the making/upholding of same are important).
People in many places around the world have 'normalized' their supposed rights (using logic that we might not 'yet' necessarily apply, or 'edicts' from 'on high' we do not ascribe to) to have 'relationships' with children who theoretically, according to our 'laws' cannot consent, but their laws may say that either consent is not needed or they have ensured that their children are so schooled from birth to accept what will be as a 'right' for their 'usage' as surrogates in acts we here may not (yet) condone, that those children actually think they have 'consented' and that what is being done to them is not 'wrong'. What we say constitutes consent is not necessarily what others might say or have in their book of laws. In other places, children may even still have the 'right' to refuse, but, they will then have the 'right' to suffer the consequences others impose as a result - consequences they may not yet have the ability to see or understand. If the people who have so engineered their own societies to condone the above bring their thoughts and laws here .. over time .. what will be the result when our own people are already beyond caring any more?
In the west we may not have changed the 'age of consent' yet however I think we are headed that way. We sanction the 'right' to kill off kids in the womb or even at birth (they are not human yet in the estimation of many so what 'rights' could they possibly have ... so we will exercise OUR 'right to decide' for them), at the same time we are also forcing 'maturity' on surviving children at earlier and earlier ages. We feel obliged for some reason to expose children (who in theory are no more evolved today at, say age 7, than they were 200 or 1000 years ago) to more and more traditionally adult things/subjects and expect them to not only understand but condone those things. The next stage is probably to say that since they are already exposed - and have been schooled to think that certain things are 'acceptable', why not give them the 'right' to act as well .. so then 'the collective we' will allow and accept the lowering of the age of consent .. by law.
Dang ... do we have another, what I would call, 'slippery slope' here? Each step may indeed be argued as it comes up .. individually ... but the likelihood that unthinking minds will not approve of each if the bite is small enough gets lower and lower.
So, it is fun to 'philosophize' but in today's society people suddenly appear to have a 'newly defined' right to 'self-identify' as anything they please, whether to most of us that seems rational or not, and are then apparently instantly accorded further unwritten 'rights' as a result. The world has gone off its tracks in my opinion (which counts for exactly nothing these days) and I am not sure we can do much about it as individuals without much power .. other than just keep our own heads above water and maintain awareness as we slide.
Unfortunately, while I would like to believe that society, from its smallest components (the individual) to the whole, is 'informed', if they ever were, in the best sense of that word ... I do not any more. And even if they are 'informed' in some way, even through personal experience, observation and perhaps some form of media that talks 'truth' (whatever that is) ... it seems many, even most, do not know how to 'think' anymore except as a 'group' - and 'groupthink' outcomes are usually quite different from what an 'informed' individual might determine is the best course of action. 'Bandwagon' fallacy comes to mind. I see that as having been 'engineered' for the benefit of the few over the many.
Inputs to personal thought and opinion are now 'informed' by a much wider range of thought because of the internet - and while one might initially think that has been a boon .. giving more to consider than just our immediate world .. I believe it has already (in just a few short years) overloaded our capacity to make good and sound judgements, even for ourselves, much less for all on earth. And unless the web and all it allows vis a vis the 'transfer of information and opinion' implodes at some time, that is not likely to change. I think the result will be that more and more people will begin to cocoon and not 'think' for themselves, allowing those who engineered all this (and most of it is now intentional, even if it was not meant to be initially) to decide for us all everything about how we exist.
Dangerous for all humanity? You bet! More people will be in the world, and over time the more homogeneity will arise from the currently promoted idea that 'diversity' (leading to 'fusion' as far as I can tell) is the best way to 'equalize' everything for everyone ... but fewer in future will have any idea of what is really going on around them .. we will truly be slaves to the few. This is already blatantly illustrated by the change in the concept of 'customer service' in the corporate world - where once the customer was able to determine what products they wanted and the corporate world used that input from real customers to determine what they would supply .. now we are told what products we must take, no questions asked, and with no expectation of 'longevity' or quality allowed - and how much we will like their choices for us. Major and very critical conundrums are evident when we blithely accept the concept that the loss of individual thought is a virtue and become the 'sheeple' that many would apparently want us to be.
From my perspective, unless one just wants to hide their head in the sand (which many indeed do think is the best way to go about 'life' - since the stress imposed by doing otherwise - again deliberately engineered by TPTB - is too great to bear for long periods), it seems that all one can do is stand back and watch all the 'slippery slopes' converge at the very bottom in a giant cesspool. I find that very sad ... but it has happened in history before and I don't doubt it can and will again, probably sooner than later.
We are likely not really very 'intelligent' after all as a race (the human race, I mean). If the ability to reason properly was our forte, the natural niche which defines humans as superior (as defined by 'us') to other species and which proved we had the right to 'dominance', I believe we have lost that ability for the most part - so where does that leave us? Are we back to 'opposable thumbs' are our only advantage?
Sorry for the length of this post ... the trail leads in many directions.
But no, I am not just talking to myself (I hope) because I like the sound of my own voice. I have no answers .. but I want to keep asking many questions .. and I hope that indicates my head is not yet in the sand .. and if it is not in the sand, maybe talking about these things can plant seeds that pull or keep others out too. My motto is .. question everything .. know your own mind, not the 'mind' that the few would have you believe is the only 'right' mind.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
