Slippery slopes are not the point

I actually have a day job but I cannot resist a quick response here. A few readers think that I am offering a slippery slope argument (as I interpret them anyway). In other words, if we take the view that morality is subjective, then anything goes. So gaga writes: "I see that you keep putting up the same view that since there is no ultimate objective meaning everything is the same, let's go eat babies."

That's a complete and total misreading of the argument. (Even so, I can understand how somebody can make it.) So emphatically, I'm not arguing that the denial of absolute meaning (value and purpose) will lead to baby feasts.

Why not? Let's start here. Ethan takes up the case of the woman who ate her baby because she was told to (so she believes) by the devil. He then notes two more recent cases -- Andrea Yates and Dena Schlosser -- though in those cases they acted on the perceived command of the devil's nemesis. Ethan then comments: "I can't help wondering if less superstition would help in these cases. People who insist that gods and devils are real help feed psychotic delusions like these that result in dead children."

The answer to Ethan would be that all three of these women were psychologically disturbed. I have written about the Dena Schlosser case at some length in an upcoming book on genocide. She was sent to a mental detention facility due to psychotic delusions and has since been released.(But this does lead to an interesting if tangential question: does the recognition of supernatural entities in one's worldview provide an additional outlet in which psychosis can express itself?)

Some people argue that ethical objectivism plus ethical certitude leads to the commission of moral atrocities. In short: if there is an ethical absolute and I believe that I know it, then I will be more likely to oppress others. To this I reply maybe, maybe not. It depends on what it is that you believe you know. If you are a Jain and you believe absolutely that you should never hurt a fly, then we can breathe easy. But if you are a suicide bomber and you believe that you must take as many civilians with you as possible in accord with God's will, well then we better look out.

Just as ethical objectivism cannot be directly faulted for moral atrocities, so neither can ethical subjectivism. I'd much rather have gaga or Ethan as a neighbor than an absolutist suicide bomber because their ethical subjectivism goes along with a moral system that maps quite closely onto mine. Thus, for day to day life, I'll take an ethical system that mirrors mine over a metaethical system that mirrors mine.

Now back to gaga's claim. My argument is not that we'll end up feasting on babies and so we should reject subjective morality. Rather, the argument is that our moral intuitions support the conclusion that the act of feasting on babies is an absolute moral atrocity. And if it is such, then moral objectivism is true.

Finally, I don't worry that gaga or Ethan will sink into moral decadence for the same reason that David Hume, though doubting causation in the classroom, could still play a fine game of billiards.