The slippery slope fallacy as can be avoided through axiomatic reasoning. Think instead of a slogan which forms the basis of a common world view, "Love is Love" for example. It isn't reasonable then to limit gay people to just civil unions, interactions to monogomy, or even put any limits on sexual behavior. A Slippery Slope can be logical when the axioms underpinning the philosophy are based on a single step. This would be more akin to Yoda saying "Not being able to control your anger will lead you to make mistakes," I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Except it holds a lot of the time. We only want Civil Unions -> Gay marriage must be universally accepted -> Any relationship is morally equivalent to Marriage between a man and a women -> You can identify as whatever gender you want and hedonistic pleasure is all that matters. The difference is that Jordan Peterson does not use the "Slippery Slope," rather he takes the axiom, in this instance "Love is Love," and takes it to its logical conclusion. If "Love is Love" is true then why shouldn't any sexual act you want to experience be morally acceptable and encouraged? It's not a one thing led to another argument, it is a logical outgrowth of the axioms someone bases their world view on.
The slippery slope fallacy as can be avoided through axiomatic reasoning. Think instead of a slogan which forms the basis of a common world view, "Love is Love" for example. It isn't reasonable then to limit gay people to just civil unions, interactions to monogomy, or even put any limits on sexual behavior. A Slippery Slope can be logical when the axioms underpinning the philosophy are based on a single step. This would be more akin to Yoda saying "Not being able to control your anger will lead you to make mistakes," I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Interesting point. Thanks for sharing!
It's a fallacy until it isn't
You're not wrong. That's why cautious concern is important. The fallacy is when we overestimate the likelihood of an outcome.
Great video! 👍 a comment and like for the algorithm.
Thanks! Let's go algorithm :)
so basically every jordan peterson argument ever...
I don't watch a lot of Jordan Peterson so I'll have to take your word for it ;)
Except it holds a lot of the time. We only want Civil Unions -> Gay marriage must be universally accepted -> Any relationship is morally equivalent to Marriage between a man and a women -> You can identify as whatever gender you want and hedonistic pleasure is all that matters.
The difference is that Jordan Peterson does not use the "Slippery Slope," rather he takes the axiom, in this instance "Love is Love," and takes it to its logical conclusion. If "Love is Love" is true then why shouldn't any sexual act you want to experience be morally acceptable and encouraged? It's not a one thing led to another argument, it is a logical outgrowth of the axioms someone bases their world view on.
You sound like someone who doesn't actually listen to him