Discuusion week 2-8 Post 3

The slippery slope argument is clearly invalid if it is meant to be a point of logic, for it does not follow that "if b is an exception to A, then no part of A is true."  Specific exceptions to a rule or principle do not in any way logically imply that the rule is otherwise false or never justifiably applicable in any cases.  In fact, calling something an "exception" points out that only it is the relevant act that the rule does not cover.  If, for example, a pharmaceutical drug should be used only by people who have asthma, that does not imply people should also take it for arthritis or pregnancy.  Permitting stem cell research on embryos does not logically imply that sacrificing infants or terminally ill patients is acceptable. It appears the argument is meant to be more an argument about people's psychology, and, spelled out, it seems to be something more like "if you make any exceptions to a rule, particularly a cherished or time-honored rule, people will think the rule arbitrary to begin with and will see no reason to follow it at all."  Hence, any exceptions undermine respect for a rule, and thus eventually lead to the rule's not being followed at all.  Or another intended argument might be "people cannot generally make fine distinctions, so if you make an exception to a (time-honored) rule, people will think you have shown the rule to be flawed and therefore unnecessary to follow."