Slippery Slope Arguments And Their Application To Legal Reasoning

Slippery slope arguments (hereafter referred as SSAs) is a phiosophica.l and logic term introduced from the West by the author. As a dialect ical reasoning method, SSAs have at traded many scholars' intcrest and attention abroad and are applied to legal reasoning more and more.The author believes that SSAs will take their due place in our legal reasoning as our legal construction proceeds futherly and more and more attentions are paid to legal reasoning.The thesis consists of the following main parts.Introductory part. On analyzing two real examples, the author points out that SSAs have been and can be used in our legislative and judiciary practices. After that, the author makes a brief introduction on the study and application of SSAs abroad.Part I. The author discusses mainly the basic knowledge of SSAs. Firstly, the author gives a rough definition of SSAs. SSAs are this kind of argament or reasoning: We should resist (or allow) a certain practice or policy on the ground that allowing (or resisting) such practice or policy is likely to lead to allowing (or resisting) other practice or policy which we must resist (or allow). Then, the author analyzes the basic constituents of SSAs, pointing out that every SSA is based upon that intervening and gradual cases (steps) make up a slope and that on the slope there lacks reasonable stop place. Furthermore, in SSAS, We must implicitly concede that the case under consideration itself is not objectional. Finally, the author differentiates between different sorts of SSAs, suggesting that Rational Grounds SSAs emphasize that allowing a certain action will finally cause us to lose the grounds for resisting other objectional actions whereas Empirical SSAs predict the horrible consequences caused by allowing a certain action.Part II. This part, centres on how to recognize and evaluate SSAscorrectly. On one hand, the author emphasizes that SSAs are not intrinsically fallacious since they are built on the materialist dialectic of the relation among quality, quantity and degree and the dialectical relationship between quantitative changes and qualitative changes. On the other hand , the auther points out that the conclusion from SSAs is not always logically effective on the basis of logic inference, analysizes the factors which influence the strength of SSAs, including the context where they are to be invoked, the likdihood of sliding down the slope, the objectionability of the consequences, the reasons to allow A and ideological differences.Part III. This part concentrates on SSAs' application to and roles in legal reasoning. Firstly, the author analyzes the roles of rational grounds SSAs in legislative reasoning and points out they are conducive to promoting the fairness of legislation, ensuring the unification of the legal system and the uniform implementation of law, making the legislation more scientific and operational, upgrading the level and quality of our legislation. Secondly, the author analyzes the many factors, such as precedents and continuums, vague and indeterminate legal terms, psycological considerations and social factors, which are especial ly conducive to s 1 id ing down s lopes in judiciary fields, thus, emphasizes that SSAs can provide courts and judges sufficient reasons to resist a certain action or policy as well as influence the ways by which judges make their decisions.Conclusion. The auther concludes that SSAs are not intrin-sincally fallacious and can play effective roles in legal reasoning, though their inferrence is not logically effective.