I do think there’s some validity to the argument that the guy offers in the OP, but I think he comes to the wrong conclusion. That is, I do think there is potential for slippery slope in behavior and I do think that to some extent the behavior of one can affect the behavior of others, but he’s drawn the line WAY WAY to conservatively.
As far as the slippery slope goes, I think he’s just mashed too much into the “breaking the law” concept. For instance, I would agree that stealing $1 from the cash register at work to get a drink from the vending machine is wrong and it’s a slippery slope toward more serious offences, but that’s a slippery slope toward stealing $10, then $100, then $1000. I don’t think it follows that by stealing $1 it might ultimately lead to utter lawlessness and a murderous rampage.
By the same token, I don’t think that the slippery slope of jay walking necessarily leads to anything of substantial consequence except, perhaps making potentially riskier and riskier jaywalks. I just cannot buy that one person might have been perfectly law abiding before becoming a drug lord or something and his first crime was jaywalking, and certainly not with his first jaywalking offense at an adult age.
I also think that jaywalking is a fundamentally different type of crime than theft, rape, or murder. It is impossible to have a theft, rape, or murder without someone being a victim. With a crime jaywalking, it is possible that there is a victim with jaywalking, should it cause an accident or even force someone to slow down or swerve, but it is possible to be technically guilty of it and not have anyone other than the jaywalker affected at all.
But someone who always follows the letter of the law leaves me with a lot of questions about how he might handle more morally ambiguous situations. It’s not so bad to walk a little bit farther, but what if he had to walk a lot farther, would he do it then? Or, more interestingly, what if both the seriousness of the law and the cost involved with upholding it were much higher. For instance, some variation of something like stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family, or whatever strikes a cord with him. Frankly, I have trouble trusting that someone who holds such a solid absolute on a relatively minor thing might be appropriately equipped to handle a situation when the costs are more dire.
And on the single actor part, I do think there’s something to it. There’s certainly some aspects of hive mind or group think or herd mentality or whatever you want to call it, and individuals can have sway over it. The problem is, one will only have sway if one is actually working toward something that others can relate to. So many societal changes have been sparked by just a single act or a small series of acts, but they also tend to be on issues that society is primed for change on and that individuals just need a catalyst to get the ball rolling on change. The problem is, with not jaywalking, not only is it pushing such a small thing, but it’s also doing it in a small way.
That is, one person can cause ripples over an entire lake if he drops a large enough stone from high enough up, but if one is dropping only a pebble from only a few inches above the surface, he’s only fooling himself if he thinks anyone will notice anything. So, in short, he’s deluding himself into thinking he’s doing something to improve society, but it’s just a waste.
