A genuine actual Thomist remarks on the “slippery slope” argument

What is wrong with a slippery slope argument? Or better: what makes a slope slippery? It’s the practice of compromising, in some “little” way, a principle whose very nature is universal and necessary, while expecting still to enjoy the benefits of a society (or a marriage, or other relationship) founded on that principle. The trouble is that over the long run – and maybe not so long a run either – the endless fecundity of circumstances will present you with further tempting opportunities for exceptions and compromise. Since you’ve already compromised, why not move the bar just a little more? If you’re lucky, this disturbs you, and you have the sensation of something slippery under your feet.

The “slippery slope argument” simply calls attention to the fact that you have forfeited the rationale for not moving the bar. The principle, in the very necessity of the truth it expresses is, after all, the reason for anyone standing fast – but you have already chosen to treat it as if it could be negotiated.

The contraceptive culture is one that has already compromised the integrity of the conjugal act. Now every permission slip we write ourselves almost instantly generates a sense of entitlement to the benefit of the permission. It isn’t fair if the contraceptive doesn’t work, or if I forget to use it. To quote our President, “Why should I be punished with a baby?” So abortion becomes expedient, and soon a necessary entitlement. So negotiating one principle leads to the negotiation of a second principle (life). And the negotiation of that principle leads to its further negotiation, from doing away with unborn persons to doing away with infirm persons, handicapped persons, etc.

Certainly other factors also contribute to abortion and euthanasia advocacy, e.g., neo-Malthusian population control ideology. And yet, these tend also to be factors and philosophies of relatively rich folks who are afraid that what they are pleased to call their “quality of life” will be spoiled by such things as unplanned responsibility for others (or, more shortly, unplanned *others*) and “too many guests coming to sit at humanity’s table” (Schooyans). It is the same mentality and the same love of comfort as that which desires to separate sex from the possibility, or even the idea, of procreation. I fear, or refuse, to try to govern my libido, even in marriage. The cost is the compromise of a principle that in turn implicitly affirms a false principle – for all human acts can be interpreted according to some principle.

“Ideas have consequences.” If you compromise a true principle, then even if you are unwilling to *affirm* a false principle, your action will still be an example that *teaches* a false principle, e.g., that sex need have no relation whatever to
procreation, or that innocent human life can sometimes be directly terminated if this serves some worthy purpose. And then we will all have to live (or die) with the consequences of the *false *principle as a force operating in our culture.

This is the “slippery slope”. You’re “decent”, and you only carry your exceptions so far. But others do not see why their exceptions aren’t as good as yours. What can you tell them? That they aren’t as decent as you?

Agreed. What critics of slippery slope arguments seem to me to habitually do is ignore the constant pressure of original sin on the human race. A culture that denies original sin (as our does) does not thereby rid itself of original sin. It only rids itself of the remedy for original sin called “grace” (since receiving grace requires admitting you are a sinner). And precisely the mark of original sin is *slavery*. When you reject God as Father, you don’t get freedom. You get the perception of God as Master and you find yourself in a universe of master/slave relationships. In such a universe, you demand “freedom” above all else and such freedom invariably means “acquiring the power to do what I like” (which means the War of All Against All).

The only solution is this: “Repent and believe the Good News”.