I think that this indicates it’s better to specify the cases for which a given belief does apply, even if those cases can’t be defined any better than “all the cases I’ve currently seen.” Generally, double standards can be stated as coherent principles if one tries hard enough. With regard to prohibiting behaviors in society, people often use “slippery slope” arguments when they don’t recognize the underlying principle. Take marriage, for example; those opposed to gay marriage often say that if we allow it, next we’ll have people marrying their pets. The underlying principle that they miss is the ability to consent to marriage, which of course animals don’t possess.
If the principle on which a person bases eir actions is, in essence, rationality (i.e. updating the map to fit the territory better), that might lead to far-past behavior seeming inconsistent with near-past behavior, but the overarching principle is still being maintained. I think that’s a different sort of inconsistency than someone who takes actions that clearly contradict a principle ey still claims to hold. If we take a relatively small selection of time, during which a person does not claim to have updated eir map, we should see that ey acted consistently with eir stated principles. To me, immediate predictability is more important for trustworthiness than long-term predictability, because it signals a principled actor.
With regard to prohibiting behaviors in society, people often use “slippery slope” arguments when they don’t recognize the underlying principle. Take marriage, for example; those opposed to gay marriage often say that if we allow it, next we’ll have people marrying their pets. The underlying principle that they miss is the ability to consent to marriage, which of course animals don’t possess.
Ah yes, slippery slope arguments. People tend to overuse them in many regions where they’re not necessary. At the same time, however, there is sometimes some truth in slippery slope arguments (over a long period of time), since any deviation from the new norm will be seen as “extremist”.
With both gay marriage and drug decriminalization, for example, I actually see the “slippery slope” argument as partially true (even though there is really no rational reason to continue to oppose either policy). I’m noticing a lot of people (on Internet forums, anyways) say that there really is no rational reason to oppose consensual relationships between any two people (including incest, as long as substantial birth-control is used) or decriminalization of all drugs.
So of course, these are slippery slopes. But they’re really only slippery slopes because people don’t understand the underlying principles here (the underlying principle being that there is no rational reason to punish victimless actions)
If the principle on which a person bases eir actions is, in essence, rationality (i.e. updating the map to fit the territory better), that might lead to far-past behavior seeming inconsistent with near-past behavior, but the overarching principle is still being maintained. I think that’s a different sort of inconsistency than someone who takes actions that clearly contradict a principle ey still claims to hold
Also an excellent point. It’s often difficult to clarify this overarching principle (I have one in mind, but I still can’t precisely put it in words). Part of it is because I also expect to make mistakes, and to learn from them. And yes, I agree that it’s a different sort of inconsistency (although it would be difficult to convince most people that)
With both gay marriage and drug decriminalization, for example, I actually see the “slippery slope” argument as partially true (even though there is really no rational reason to continue to oppose either policy). I’m noticing a lot of people (on Internet forums, anyways) say that there really is no rational reason to oppose consensual relationships between any two people (including incest, as long as substantial birth-control is used) or decriminalization of all drugs.
But is this a consequence of a dangerous slippery slope, or the consequence of the same legitimate arguments being true in those cases?
So of course, these are slippery slopes. But they’re really only slippery slopes because people don’t understand the underlying principles here (the underlying principle being that there is no rational reason to punish victimless actions)
In such cases it is agreement not understanding that matters.
I think that this indicates it’s better to specify the cases for which a given belief does apply, even if those cases can’t be defined any better than “all the cases I’ve currently seen.” Generally, double standards can be stated as coherent principles if one tries hard enough. With regard to prohibiting behaviors in society, people often use “slippery slope” arguments when they don’t recognize the underlying principle. Take marriage, for example; those opposed to gay marriage often say that if we allow it, next we’ll have people marrying their pets. The underlying principle that they miss is the ability to consent to marriage, which of course animals don’t possess.
If the principle on which a person bases eir actions is, in essence, rationality (i.e. updating the map to fit the territory better), that might lead to far-past behavior seeming inconsistent with near-past behavior, but the overarching principle is still being maintained. I think that’s a different sort of inconsistency than someone who takes actions that clearly contradict a principle ey still claims to hold. If we take a relatively small selection of time, during which a person does not claim to have updated eir map, we should see that ey acted consistently with eir stated principles. To me, immediate predictability is more important for trustworthiness than long-term predictability, because it signals a principled actor.
I like your reply a lot. =)
Ah yes, slippery slope arguments. People tend to overuse them in many regions where they’re not necessary. At the same time, however, there is sometimes some truth in slippery slope arguments (over a long period of time), since any deviation from the new norm will be seen as “extremist”.
With both gay marriage and drug decriminalization, for example, I actually see the “slippery slope” argument as partially true (even though there is really no rational reason to continue to oppose either policy). I’m noticing a lot of people (on Internet forums, anyways) say that there really is no rational reason to oppose consensual relationships between any two people (including incest, as long as substantial birth-control is used) or decriminalization of all drugs.
So of course, these are slippery slopes. But they’re really only slippery slopes because people don’t understand the underlying principles here (the underlying principle being that there is no rational reason to punish victimless actions)
Also an excellent point. It’s often difficult to clarify this overarching principle (I have one in mind, but I still can’t precisely put it in words). Part of it is because I also expect to make mistakes, and to learn from them. And yes, I agree that it’s a different sort of inconsistency (although it would be difficult to convince most people that)
But is this a consequence of a dangerous slippery slope, or the consequence of the same legitimate arguments being true in those cases?
In such cases it is agreement not understanding that matters.