Claire Davis
Jul 10, 2017 · 3 min read

The slippery slope argument is one of many popular logical fallacies.

Morality is relative. If morality were objective and unchanging, we wouldn’t be able to observe such significant shifts in collective moral thought throughout human history, and between different seemingly-similar societies (as observed in Western culture between different European nations and even between different US states). Society’s collective agreement on what is “right” and what is “wrong” is necessary to maintain an ordered, stable society. However, society’s collective agreement on this changes and evolves over time as humanity changes. Sometimes, these changes are good. Sometimes, they are not good.

There is a huge gray area between the black-and-white dichotomy of absolute truth vs. moral relativism. Reality is far more nuanced than this. As I illustrated in one of my previous comments, the relative nature of morality is exactly why we have different laws for capital first degree murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter, etc. If we simply assume that one man killing another is wrong, and this is an absolute moral truth, the nuance behind the taking of a life is lost, and there is no differentiation between manslaughter and murder.

We know this isn’t true. Even within the context of one type of killing (for instance, capital murder), there are other factors that are considered when a judge sentences a killer.

Moral relativism is only dangerous if you allow it to be. That is, if you extrapolate from my statement that because morality is relative, there’s no point in having any laws. That’s not my argument. My argument in favor of moral relativism is directly related to the original subject (abortion), because the view of abortion as murder involves morality, which is subjective. Morality is based on society’s collective opinions on all aspects of life, and is therefore subjective.

Contrary to the commonly-held belief that the United States was founded on “Judeo-Christian values” (which is a meaningless term if you ever take the time to learn what “Judeo values” actually are), our nation was founded on one thing above all else — liberty. Our Bill of Rights does not protect Christians or “Judeo-Christian values”. Its purpose is to limit the reach of the government at all levels, in order to prevent tyranny and preserve the liberty of America’s citizens.

Liberty does not mean anarchy. It does not mean that everyone can do whatever they want, consequences be damned. What liberty means is that you are entitled to live your life as you please, provided your life does not impose upon others, thereby infringing upon others’ equal entitlement to live life as they please.

With great power comes great responsibility — and great consequences. Moral relativism, like all things, can be used as a crutch and a justification for behaving atrociously. Many religious doctrines have been used the exact same way throughout history. To understand the true meaning of relative morality, however, is to understand the necessity of personal responsibility and self-discipline.

It’s precisely when we assume that something is incontrovertible and inviolable (in other words, absolute truth) that we succeed in artificially limiting ourselves for no other reason than because we’ve insisted on establishing such absolute truth.

Establishing absolute truth or morality absolutely imposes on others. It’s the belief in absolute morality that leads to legislating morality, which includes conservative-supported regulations like FCC censorship or marriage laws, and liberal-supported things like Affirmative Action.

We should only ever demand that our government establish laws that objectively benefit the population as a whole. This avoids the very treacherous waters of morality legislation, where we expect our legislators to determine what is “moral” and “immoral”. You may find it immoral that a gay couple wants to get married, but that isn’t justification for legally prohibiting the same. I may find it immoral that you eat meat (I love meat; this is just for the sake of argument), but that isn’t justification for legally prohibiting your right to do so.

It’s also the belief in absolute morality that leads groups of people to use violence and force to push their beliefs onto others. After all, if something is absolutely wrong or absolutely right, you’d be entirely justified in imposing upon others, because there is no room for any view that opposes your absolute truth.

If anything, the dogged insistence that truth is absolute is far more dangerous slippery slope than the belief that truth is relative, and as such we should continually question what we think we know in the interest of either further strengthening our beliefs or opening ourselves up to things we may never have otherwise considered.

    Claire Davis

    Written by

    I’m just a girl living in the Pacific Northwest. I have lots of thoughts about the world, and sometimes I write them down.