title: The Slippery Slope Argument in the Ethical Debate on Genetic Engineering of Humans.
abstract: This article applies tools from argumentation theory to slippery slope arguments used in current ethical debates on genetic engineering. Among the tools used are argumentation schemes, value-based argumentation, critical questions, and burden of proof. It is argued that so-called drivers such as social acceptance and rapid technological development are also important factors that need to be taken into account alongside the argumentation scheme. It is shown that the slippery slope argument is basically a reasonable (but defeasible) form of argument, but is often flawed when used in ethical debates because of failures to meet the requirements of its scheme.
authors.affiliation: Philosophy Department, Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (CRRAR), University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, ON, N9B 3P4, Canada. waltoncrrar@gmail.com.
authors.forename: Douglas
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Walton
mesh_terms: D034462:Dissent and Disputes; D005053:Eugenics / Q000379:methods*; D005818:Genetic Engineering / Q000941:ethics*; D006801:Humans; D062069:Inventions; D009014:Morals; D012935:Social Justice; D012945:Social Values; D035761:Wedge Argument
keywords: Argumentation schemes; Gene editing; Genetic enhancement; Germline therapy