Ray Comfort said: “This society in which we live is radically changing. What previous generations saw as evil is now embraced as being good. It is a dangerous and slippery slope upon which we stand when we reject what Solomon called the beginning of wisdom—the fear of God.”
The world goes through waves of radical change. We swing like a pendulum in a grandfather clock, never standing still. The pendulum swings in one direction for long periods of time, lasting hundreds of years. As we swing further and further away from our ideological beginnings, we move into deep, uncharted water. What happens when we do this is a change in the fabric of our morality. The farther away we move, the more ties are broken, leaving us unable to remember, or care about the past.
There are many people who argue that the slippery slope cultural argument is invalid. This is because they are afraid of its truth. But the slippery slope argument is as strong as they come. Once we fall down the slope, we must continue to fall until we reach the bottom. The subjective morality we create for ourselves is what gets us by, but it lacks any grounding.
According to Salon:
“In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called ‘mild pedophilia,’ which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes ‘lasting harm.’ Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters ‘pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts,’ and that to condemn this ‘mild touching up’ as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair. ‘I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,’ he said.”
In essence, Dawkins is endorsing pedophilia. He looks back to his childhood with a different judgment than he would use today. In Dawkins’ view lies the inherent idiocy of subjective morality. According to Dawkins’ perspective, because his abuse took place decades ago, it cannot be judged. Why? Is there a statute of limitations on perversity of which I am unaware? No, he holds this view because he cannot hold any other without violating his personal subjective morality.
Within the realm of subjective morality, one can hold any view without expecting judgment from others, because there is no ultimate God-like standard to which we must all adhere. With that, Dawkins cannot judge pedophilia without compromising his views on malleable morality.
Here’s the problem: if he cannot judge “mild pedophilia,” what can he judge? Nothing is the correct answer. He is rolling down a slippery slope of “anything goes.” It’s an irrational philosophy built upon idiocy and a lack of critical intelligence.
The main concern is this: if subjective morality can endorse anything—because it cannot be judged—what else will come down the pipeline? We have already paddled out so far that we cannot see land; how much farther will we go before we drown in our own moral hubris? Richard Dawkins seems like he’s willing to go the distance. How many others out there are like him?