• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.129
• /
• pp.267-290
• /
• 2014

The slippery slope argument means that if we accept a type of action A, we are committed to accepting B, C and eventually N. Then, N is situation which we must not accept morally. It works causal mechnism that B because A is raised, C because B is raised. But in the logic textbooks and treatises, the slippery slope argument is classified as fallacy. The reason is that the argument is not a causal argument. Actually, it is a probable. Also it is argued that the argument is wrong because it fears about the future extremely. But We can not say all slippery slope argument is fallacy even though a slippery slope argument is sometimes fallacy. I think it is persuasive argument in a significant place. Therefore I argue that the argument is not simple logic as a form of thinking, but practical reasoning applied the context of dialogue. So in order to find it to be practical reasoning we demand the new understanding to fallacy theory. In traditionally, fallacy is defined to wrong reasoning logically, but according to Walton, fallacy means a verbal tactic or deceptive trick that can be used to cause someone to fall down in argument. That is to say, whether or not the argument is successful depends on how it uses as argument tactic in a given context of dialogue. Therefore I argue that whether or not the argument is successful, because of it is practical problem used in a context of dialogue, is to be approached to pragma and dialectical method, not semantic.