메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국생명윤리학회 생명윤리 생명윤리 제4권 제1호
발행연도
2003.6
수록면
2 - 20 (19page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
‘Slippery Slope Arguments’ are arguments from consequences, which arise in biomedical ethical issues so frequently. It is characteristic of all slippery slope arguments that a dangerous outcome of some contemplated course of action is warned of. But the slippery slope arguments is more than just a warning. The dangerous outcome is put forward as a reason for not taking a first step in the contemplated course of action, on the grounds of the consequences that may follow.
Despite the major role slippery slope arguments have always played in prudential, moral, political and legal argumentations, they have a bad philosophical reputations. Some texts even refer to them as ‘slippery slope fallacies’, or ‘the slippery slope fallacy’. Slippery slope arguments are open to criticism for logical unclarity and heap of argumentations.
After characterizing ‘slippery slope arguments’ and analyzing the pattern of that arguments, I then explore its implications. We can devide slippery slope arguments into two versions of logical and empirical(psychological). Logical versions of slippery slope arguments have the burden of proof which is hard to clear out.
I conclude that when we use slippery slope arguments to appose to allow A, we ought to be very sincere so as not to be vulnerable to ‘fallacy of heap’ or ‘fallacy of generalizations’. A slippery slope arguments that is not in accord with the goals of dialogue is an incorrect or faulty slippery slope arguments. But it is not necessarily a fallacious slippery slope arguments. We have to deal with slippery slope arguments in the context of dialogue about practical issues. If we focus on purely logical contexts in understanding and using slippery slope arguments, that is incorrect approach.

목차

1. 들어가며
2. 미끄러운 경사길 논변 분석
3. ‘미끄러운 경사길 논변’은 오류(fallacy)인가?
4. ‘미끄러운 경사길 논변’이 언제나 오류인 것은 아니다.: Douglas Walton를 중심으로
5. 맺으며

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-570-002513444