Legal Commentary

...by Eric Posner, on Slate's blog.

But is Posner's argument really a "slippery slope" argument? I'd say that Posner's argument is an example of Burkean conservatism, which opposes all rationalistic debate about all social institutions, on the theory that, once one starts to demand reasons for conventions, conventions (good and bad) unravel, because human reasoning powers are weak.

I excluded Burkean arguments from the ambit of "slippery slope" arguments, because they prove far more than most "slippery slopers" would every concede -- namely, that we should all be very cautious Tories about any suggestions for social reform. As a semi-cautious Tory myself, I applaud the sentiment. And I hereby exempt the "Burkean" version of the s.s. argument from all of my previous objections. But I rather doubt that many folks will accept my invitation to join the Tory bias for the status quo. (Note that, if one has such a bias, one should resist all efforts to overturn Roe v Wade, as that precedent has been around so long that rationalistic critique of the decision would violate Tory principles).