The Slippery Slope, from Euthanasia to Extermination

Agamedes sees logic fly out the door, as letter writers make broad and dubious assumptions.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Hands up, those people who support euthanasia! Now, hands up those who are opposed?

I was interested to read, that Buddhists support euthanasia (Letters, The West, 26 May 10). Life is precious but it is not sacred. If life is too painful then a Buddhist would support the compassion of euthanasia. That is the view of Ajahn Brahm, a Buddhist abbot.

Compare that to the views of Natalie Matthews, in The West on the day before (Letters, The West, 25 May 10). The Voluntary Euthanasia Bill apparently "stinks of premature death and is a shocking solution to an ageing population."

Matthews' letter uses the "slippery slope" fallacy of logic.

"Slippery slope" logic begins with the acceptance of euthanasia and assumes that actions will follow down the slippery slope of illogic, to end with mass execution of old people. (By the way, my previous sentence is deliberately loaded with an emotional expression... mea culpa:-)

The essence of "slippery slope" is a long chain of logic. For example:

1. Euthanasia is voluntary, the Bill allows for assistance.
   
2. Because of the previous point, some people will ask for assistance to kill themselves.
   
3. Because of the previous point, healthy people will see sick people and encourage the sick people to choose euthanasia.
   
4. Because of the previous point, healthy people will, without consultation, choose euthanasia on behalf of sick people.
   
5. Because of the previous point, healthy people will choose euthanasia on behalf of people who are healthy but who lack the power to defend themselves.
   
6. Because of the previous point, healthy young people will force euthanasia onto weak old people.
   
7. Because of the previous point, young people will use euthanasia laws to legally kill all old people.
   
8. Because of all the previous points, passing the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill will lead inexorably to the "shocking solution" of killing every old person.
   

See how it works? Do you see why it is called a fallacy of logic?

By the logic of those eight points, voluntary euthanasia leads to mass extermination of old people. The logic depends on the correctness of every single step in the chain of logic. If any step at all is false, the chain of logic has failed.

Matthews' letter leaps straight from the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill to "a shocking solution to an ageing population." There is an unstated chain of logic, from the Bill to the "solution". The letter uses as its basis, an unstated slippery slope of logical fallacy.

The letter's chain of logic is assumed, not stated. If the logic is similar to mine, there are eight steps which -- to support the letter -- must all be true. Do you believe that every one of my stated steps of logic is true?

Do you believe that every one of Matthews' unstated steps of logic is true? Do you believe the illogic of Matthews' letter? I don't.

I support euthanasia. I appreciate the Buddhist view, as stated in today's letter.

I can sympathise with people whose moral or religious convictions do not allow them to consider euthanasia as an option. That is their right, to reject euthanasia for themselves.

I have no sympathy at all, with the lack of logic which places a Voluntary Euthanasia Bill as the first step on the slippery slope to mass extermination of unwanted old people.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com