Article content

There is a tendency, in discussions of national security, or civil liberties — perhaps in discussions of most things — for people to retreat into cliché.

Raise concerns, however well-founded, about the consequences of some proposed security measure for civil liberties, and prepare to be accused of making — for no one bothers to rebut arguments any more, they just name them — a “slippery slope” argument.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or Andrew Coyne: It's absurd to either condemn or praise Harper's terror bill in absolute terms Back to video

On the other hand, suggest that the peculiar threat posed by modern macro-terrorism may require some adjustment, however slight, in the traditional balance between freedom and order, and brace yourself for a lecture on the theme “the ends do not justify the means.”

Well, no. Some slopes are slippery. Merely because someone asserts the existence of a “slippery slope” — if we accept x then y will surely follow — is not enough either to prove or disprove their argument. It depends, rather, on the plausibility of the slipperiness. Likewise, it is no more true to say “the ends do not justify the means” — at all times, in all circumstances — than it is to say that they do. How can we know, without comparing them? The true statement is: some ends justify some means.