Individuals with different personal attributes perform immoral acts for the first time. For later times, they are based on their behavior, and their immoral behavior becomes bigger and larger. This operation is referred to as slippery slope argument. In contrast, there are also people who are when wanted or unwanted in An unusual, small, and unhealthy behavior is faced with negative emotions, and in future decisions seek to compensate for this. That behavior is also referred to as a Licensing or compensatory behavior. On the contrary, the slippery slope. Both theories can exist in accounting, which depends on individual and environmental differences. In this research, individual differences, such as the source of internal locus control and fear as negative effect, have been investigated, that could provide important insights in escalating ethical situations regarding what types of individuals are more likely to engage in a slippery slope (consistent) pattern of behavior compared to compensatory (or licensing) behavior in accounting related scenarios. The research method is semi-experimental, applied and of a cross-sectional type. The time of research is cross-sectional in 2017. The statistical population of this study is graduate accounting (PhD) students of all universities of Iran. Using Cochran formula, 325 people were selected. In the next step, a structure for slippery slope behavior was created and using variance analysis by designing a general linear model after proving a significant effect between the variables, the comparison of the mean of different groups after their placement in the slippery slope structure was dealt. The results of this research show that individual characteristics including high levels of fear as a negative affective state indicate behavior that results in a slippery slope. In contrast, negative affliction (fear) leads less to compensatory behavior. On the other hand, people with a high internal locas of control, when negative affect (fear) is low, show compensatory behavior.

One of the most popular tools for evaluating ideas in ethics is slippery slope arguments. The simple formulation of them is in the following form: 1) If we permit the action X, then this gradually results in performing action Y. 2) Action Y is morally wrong. 3) We should not permit action X (Consequence). Moral philosophers have discussed their accurate structure, various forms and their validity. One of moral philosophers in contemporary era that did search about this subject is Hugh Lafollette. He believes that central element in these arguments is in their first premise, but not specified and that is the probability of the consequence, for this reason, probability should be inserted in their consequences. Not inserting the probability in consequence of the arguments is a kind of neglecting - and we think it is a fallacy - and inserting it results in annihilating the convincing of them. In view point of him, if any argument is formally similar to slippery slope arguments, but there isnt the element of probability in it, the argument isnt slippery slope argument, but it is straightforward induction generalization or straightforward causal argument that both are valid. Considering the Lafollette's analyses, we can say when the argument consists of probability, the argument is invalid and when it consists of necessity, it is valid, but it is no longer slippery slope argument. This essay first, introduces Lafollette's views, and then indicates the weakness of them, and defends of this idea that regarding some conditions, these arguments are valid and can be used in ethical debates.

The voluntary behaviors of human being –forming the substance of morality- are subject to change under the influence of various factors and cause, thus being manifested in certain moral virtues or vices. Some behaviors emerge under the influence of internal and mental factors of human being as some others emerge out of external and environmental factors. Therefore, an ethics-oriented man needs to know the conditions putting him in danger of being trapped in moral slippery slopes if he is supposed to have a propermanagement of his behaviors and safeguard them from individual and social injuries. Having a large variety based on the various stages of the life and development of human being, these slippery slopes would cover such aspects as individual, social, economic and political ones. These slopes have a high frequency in the words of Imam Ali particularly in Nahj al-Balagha

In this study, a framework for tax compliance is presented in which both the power of tax authorities and trust in them are related dimensions for understanding enforced and voluntary compliance. The dynamic interactions between power and trust are considered. The framework known as slippery slope framework assumes that tax compliance is depended on authorities’ power and Trust in them and voluntary cooperation. The Structural Equation Modeling is used to test slippery slope framework and 362 business owners will be examined. The results show that trust is positively related to voluntary compliance. The trust on authorities also is positively related to legitimate power and negatively correlated with coercive power. The Legitimate power and coercive power are related to forced compliance. Overall, the results are showing the multidimensional nature of power and trust and their relationship with tax compliance. The results also illustrate the importance of power and trust in tax policy.

A great deal of research suggests that small unethical infractions lead to more egregious behaviors over time. Which is referred to as slippery slope behavior pattern. In contrast, there are many conflicting findings that have been shown. Initiating an unethical act when this behavior begins to contradict the individual's moral identity can end the intrinsic motive or limit the unethical behavior.This behavior is also referred to as a licensing or compensatory behavior. We believe that both theories can exist in accounting, which depends on individual and environmental differences. In this research, we examine the role of individual differences, including the level of moral disengagement and narcissism among members of the Iranian Association Certified Accountants. The sample population was determined using the Cochran formula of 300 people. By analyzing variance by designing a general linear model, after proving the significant effect between the variables, the mean comparison of the different groups after their placement in the slippery slope structure was investigated. The results show that both theories exist in accounting. And features that include low levels of narcissism and a desire to ignore ethics, show is consistent with the slippery slope behavior. On the other hand, high narcissism and low level of moral disengagement show compensatory behavior.

A variety of arguments have been made to show that abortion is, from the time of fertilization, impermissible, arguments such as species essence argument, argument from human sanctity, slippery slope argument, potentiality argument, argument from a future like ours, and the probability argument. In this paper I will first examine the species essence argument according to the materialist views of Western philosophers and I will then go on to provide new versions of the argument on the basis of Islamic Peripatetic, Illuminationist, and Transcendent Philosophies. The focus here is primarily the moral judgment concerning abortion regardless of considerations such as a threat to the mother's life with which the judgment might change.

Abortion is one of the controversial issues in medical ethics. This operation has come across many for or against answers each of which has some arguments for its view. One for-argument says that because the fetus does not have a personality, i.e. personal characteristics, it is not considered as a person; rather it is merely a potential person. Thus destroying the fetus is morally right.  Stephan Schwarz is among those who have argued against abortion; he has directed attention to the difference between being a person and having personal functions. Thus considering functional capabilities, the fetus is a person. He holds that from the very moment of conception the fetus becomes a person with its moral right and position; it may not function as a person, though.    One of his arguments that the fetus is a person comes from viability (continuance of existence). In what follows, the authors have examined this argument. Due to the similarities between this argument and those of species essence and slippery slope -considered identical by some people- they have differentiated that argument from these two ones .

Swinburne, a contemporary philosopher of religion, is a thinker who defends the existence of God against atheists. The question of this article is, "What reading of theism does Swinburne draw?" And is this view of theism a proper view of God? Considering the examination of the problem of evil, and the most challenging attributes of God from Swinburne's point of view, he can be introduced as a moderated classical theist; Because he explains the most important attributes accepted in classical theism with a different interpretation. He denies eternal eternity. It also denies maximal immutability and suggests minimal immutability. Regarding absolute science, he offers a more adjusted reading than the classical view. It seems appropriate to introduce Swinburne's theology as "modified classical theology"; Although according to his analysis of absolute knowledge, he is on the slippery slope towards outspread theism; But his confrontation with the problem of evil is different from the approach of outspread theology. Based on the analysis, it can be said that Swinburne's view of God has many problems. This article examines Swinburne's theism with a descriptive-analytical method.

Scientific realism has always faced continuous criticisms from scientific anti-realists. Kyle Stanford's "unconceived alternatives" argument can be seen as a late and troublesome version of these challenges. In this paper, we will first briefly mention scientific realism and its supporting arguments, including the "no-miracle" argument and the "slippery slope" argument. Then we will list the main challenges that scientific realism has faced. Arguments such as "pessimistic meta-induction" and "underdetermination of scientific theories" are raised against scientific realism. In the following, we will take a look at Stanford's argument and examine how it creates a challenge for realism by combining historical and philosophical arguments, and we will also describe the realist answers raised to the said challenge. We will also try to explain from Roy Bhaskar's critical realism point of view how the Stratified view of the world and scientific theories, makes it possible to achieve knowledge of reality through scientific activity and also can weaken the basis of Stanford's anti-realist argument.

Today, despite the scientific improvements in the field of neonatal care in the world due to encountering with some awful medical situations many newborns are still suffering from very bad conditions for survival. Some Health-care providers and even some parents believe that the best choice for helping them is terminating their lives.Perhaps the heavy costs of neonatal intensive care wards, parental duties in comparison with other parents or the pity of parents for infants which cannot tolerate pain, determines their decisions.One of the topics that were considered by opponents of euthanasia is slippery slope theory; which means whatever that is provided seen by legal resolutions in modern countries. In the Netherlands in 1980 and 1990, euthanasia was widely discussed and in 2001, killing a patient by a doctor for getting rid of incurable pains was approved.Nowadays, there are valid documents indicating that at present in countries such as Holland, USA, UK and Australia providing that some physicians are being trained for voluntary euthanasia and some of the professors have accepted that the involuntary euthanasia for babies is a necessary action to help humanity.While in the present era all the religions have clearly expressed their disagreement with, euthanasia the question is that how the humans who claim for the human ethics and rights, in last few decades have descended from legalization abortion to the euthanasia of disabled children and neonatal and try to defend the newborns euthanasia by approving the Groningen protocol? This paper deals with the eroticization and discussion of the protocol by relying on the reliable books and papers of the world. So it’s better to train neonatologist and supporting poor families instead of euthanasia.