There is no "slippery slope" argument, there is only the argument that morality is more than counting, and this is either true or it is not, it is not sometimes true and sometimes not.
There is an entire field of ethics devoted to cases like this; would you kill one patient to harvest his organs to save 8? 20? 100?
Would you kill a man for a hundred dollars if you used the money on charity? A million? A billion?
Would you touture a baby in perpetuity if it ment the creation of a utopian existance for everybody?
At what point, exactly, do you simply stop thinking of ethics and rights, and simplify everything down to a simple numbers game? If you can do it at 10,000 why can't you do it at 2? What exactly is the diffence?
To say that believing there are simple, a priori human rights that must be considered no matter what the reward is "slowing down progress" have no fucking clue what you are talking about or what progress even is.
|