> I feel like this is a slow-creep argument You're thinking about what some others (including newscasters, politicians, etc.) call a slippery slope[1]. I'm wa

> I feel like this is a slow-creep argument You're thinking about what some others (including newscasters, politicians, etc.) call a slippery slope[1]. I'm wary about criticizing arguments via slippery slope, because. 1. Most optimal-ethically choices sit at a middle-point of a slope when you consider only one dimension; e.g. a limited right to free speech. 2. With respect to shifting mores, one can also consider the situation of empire and slavery. The argument goes that communication and automation respectively were insufficiently developed in the past that these structures were in fact the most empirically ethical, but that they are generally no longer optimally good given today's communication and automation technology. Analogously, as we have better dietary options today, the ethically optimal option might have shifted. That is, the point in the single dimension has shifted because we have shifted wrt the other dimensions. [1]: note that this is a misuse and misunderstanding about an actual slippery slope fallacy. In the valid usage, the slippery slope is exhibited completely within the fallacious argument so that the evidence is exaggerated to support the conclusion when the conclusion actually does not follow. In the misuse, one worries that the proposed conclusion would lead to a change in what people think is accepted, such that bad things become accepted.