The Slippery Slope Argument in the Ethical Debate on Genetic Engineering of Humans
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 soc...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Science and engineering ethics 2017-12, Vol.23 (6), p.1507-1528 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1528 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 1507 |
| container_title | Science and engineering ethics |
| container_volume | 23 |
| creator | Walton, Douglas |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11948-016-9861-3 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1851301118</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1851301118</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-8081ad232247e57a9769a76135d99b922da238d7c096aba714965abd6031d3ad3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1LxDAQhoMofv8ALxLw4qWaSdp8HEXXDxAEXc8hbWfXSpvWpD34782yq4jgXGYgz7wZHkJOgF0AY-oyAphcZwxkZrSETGyRfcgVZEWRy-00i0JkIi_4HjmI8Z0xXuhc7pI9rlkqw_fJ8_wN6UvbDAOGzzT0A9KrsJw69CNtPB3T82x8ayrX0hss3Yi09_QOPY5NRWd-2XjE0Pgl7Rf0fuqcj0dkZ-HaiMebfkheb2fz6_vs8enu4frqMauE4mOmmQZXc8F5rrBQzihpnJLp5tqY0nBeOy50rSpmpCudgtzIwpW1ZAJq4WpxSM7XuUPoPyaMo-2aWGHbOo_9FC3oAgQDAJ3Qsz_oez8Fn66zYKRO8owUiYI1VYU-xoALO4Smc-HTArMr4XYt3CbhdiXcrnZON8lT2WH9s_FtOAF8DcRhpQnDr6__Tf0CiwyIlA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1968986963</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Slippery Slope Argument in the Ethical Debate on Genetic Engineering of Humans</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Walton, Douglas</creator><creatorcontrib>Walton, Douglas</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1353-3452</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-5546</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9861-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28000092</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Bioethics ; Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering ; Critical thinking ; Education ; Engineering ; Ethics ; Genetic engineering ; Medicine/Public Health ; Original Paper ; Philosophy ; Philosophy of Science ; Rhetoric</subject><ispartof>Science and engineering ethics, 2017-12, Vol.23 (6), p.1507-1528</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016</rights><rights>Science and Engineering Ethics is a copyright of Springer, (2016). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-8081ad232247e57a9769a76135d99b922da238d7c096aba714965abd6031d3ad3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-8081ad232247e57a9769a76135d99b922da238d7c096aba714965abd6031d3ad3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11948-016-9861-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11948-016-9861-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28000092$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Walton, Douglas</creatorcontrib><title>The Slippery Slope Argument in the Ethical Debate on Genetic Engineering of Humans</title><title>Science and engineering ethics</title><addtitle>Sci Eng Ethics</addtitle><addtitle>Sci Eng Ethics</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering</subject><subject>Critical thinking</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Engineering</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Genetic engineering</subject><subject>Medicine/Public Health</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Philosophy of Science</subject><subject>Rhetoric</subject><issn>1353-3452</issn><issn>1471-5546</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1LxDAQhoMofv8ALxLw4qWaSdp8HEXXDxAEXc8hbWfXSpvWpD34782yq4jgXGYgz7wZHkJOgF0AY-oyAphcZwxkZrSETGyRfcgVZEWRy-00i0JkIi_4HjmI8Z0xXuhc7pI9rlkqw_fJ8_wN6UvbDAOGzzT0A9KrsJw69CNtPB3T82x8ayrX0hss3Yi09_QOPY5NRWd-2XjE0Pgl7Rf0fuqcj0dkZ-HaiMebfkheb2fz6_vs8enu4frqMauE4mOmmQZXc8F5rrBQzihpnJLp5tqY0nBeOy50rSpmpCudgtzIwpW1ZAJq4WpxSM7XuUPoPyaMo-2aWGHbOo_9FC3oAgQDAJ3Qsz_oez8Fn66zYKRO8owUiYI1VYU-xoALO4Smc-HTArMr4XYt3CbhdiXcrnZON8lT2WH9s_FtOAF8DcRhpQnDr6__Tf0CiwyIlA</recordid><startdate>20171201</startdate><enddate>20171201</enddate><creator>Walton, Douglas</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C18</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171201</creationdate><title>The Slippery Slope Argument in the Ethical Debate on Genetic Engineering of Humans</title><author>Walton, Douglas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-8081ad232247e57a9769a76135d99b922da238d7c096aba714965abd6031d3ad3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering</topic><topic>Critical thinking</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Engineering</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Genetic engineering</topic><topic>Medicine/Public Health</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Philosophy of Science</topic><topic>Rhetoric</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Walton, Douglas</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Humanities Index</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Science and engineering ethics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Walton, Douglas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Slippery Slope Argument in the Ethical Debate on Genetic Engineering of Humans</atitle><jtitle>Science and engineering ethics</jtitle><stitle>Sci Eng Ethics</stitle><addtitle>Sci Eng Ethics</addtitle><date>2017-12-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1507</spage><epage>1528</epage><pages>1507-1528</pages><issn>1353-3452</issn><eissn>1471-5546</eissn><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.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><pmid>28000092</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11948-016-9861-3</doi><tpages>22</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1353-3452 |
| ispartof | Science and engineering ethics, 2017-12, Vol.23 (6), p.1507-1528 |
| issn | 1353-3452 1471-5546 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1851301118 |
| source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Bioethics Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering Critical thinking Education Engineering Ethics Genetic engineering Medicine/Public Health Original Paper Philosophy Philosophy of Science Rhetoric |
| title | The Slippery Slope Argument in the Ethical Debate on Genetic Engineering of Humans |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T18%3A09%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Slippery%20Slope%20Argument%20in%20the%20Ethical%20Debate%20on%20Genetic%20Engineering%20of%20Humans&rft.jtitle=Science%20and%20engineering%20ethics&rft.au=Walton,%20Douglas&rft.date=2017-12-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1507&rft.epage=1528&rft.pages=1507-1528&rft.issn=1353-3452&rft.eissn=1471-5546&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11948-016-9861-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1851301118%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1968986963&rft_id=info:pmid/28000092&rfr_iscdi=true |