The Slippery Slope Fallacy

Other than looking to the nature of an act or personal or shared feelings about it, looking to the outcome of an action is the only major option for someone deciding how to live.  Emotional perceptions and preferences can be almost immediately ruled out as soon as a person seriously considers which options have any sort of logically possible relationship to any moral obligations that might not exist.  Even those who do not become moral relativists might still become utilitarians even after ruling out emotions as a basis of moral guidance, despite the many fallacies inherent in utilitarianism's emphasis on the results of actions.

The belief that the outcome of a certain action dictates its moral nature is just a variation of what might be embraced on the grounds of slippery slope fallacies, objections to behaviors or attitudes based on what they might or might not lead to.  Of course, it is not logically invalid to realize and admit that certain things could result from prior circumstances or events!  This is not the fallacy; believing or insisting that an act or stance is negative because of what it might lead to is fallacious.  If an idea is not untrue or an act is not immoral, then all possible consequences or reactions to the idea/act have no relevance in establishing the nature of the thing itself.  Supposing that the final step in a series of events or decisions determines the moral nature of the first step is purely fallacious utilitarian thinking.

This applies to absolutely anything that a person could inquire about, for the disconnect between the premises and conclusions of slippery slope fallacies never disappear when the topic changes.  The emotional concern around a subject has no bearing on this.  The social controversy around a subject has no relevance.  All that matters is the nature of the idea, action, or decision which might lead to an outcome that some people will subjectively desire and that some people will subjectively fear.  Even an innocent or harmless thing could be feared, hated, or mismanaged, no matter its nature or consequences.

It does not matter if nuclear weapons can destroy the earth, if alcohol can reduce someone to a drunken stupor, or if masturbation can overtake someone's thoughts at almost all times.  None of these things--or anything else whatsoever--can be legitimately objected to based on some possible outcome, no matter how probable that outcome is.  Either an idea conforms to reality or does not, but the actions of its proponents have nothing to do with the matter.  Either a course of action is morally wrong or morally permissible, but what it might lead to does not dictate the nature of the action.

Slippery slopes are inherently fallacious when used as "justifications" for any moral position.  They have no place in moral reflection and discussion except as examples of irrational ideas about moral reasoning.  Irrationalistic communities gravitate towards utilitarian claims about consequences because it is easier to fear things that might not happen at all than it is to consistently reject non sequitur scare tactics.  That is all that slippery slope fallacies can ever amount to, even when an entire group of people feels overwhelmed by discomfort at possible futures that do not reveal the nature of any first step.