Brain Fertilizer

Literal-minded social conservatives sit at the north pole of morality. Any move in any direction means one is heading south.
Life is ablaze with slippery slopes, BF, which is why we have judgement.

You know, I really struggled with leaving a sarcastic response, because my impression is that you just dripped some condescension (if not vitriol) on social conservatives. If I'm wrong, I'd like to understand better what you mean.

What I tried to say was that a brittle moralism is susceptible to shattering in the presence of change, therefore prone to viewing deviations from the literal interpretation of received codes of behavior as slippery slopes.

From the north pole, there is no other direction than south, a mountain top with nothing in sight but slippery slopes.

To me, there are many fewer absolutes, much greater liberty, and an appreciation for the facility of judgement in determining what is in one's own best interest.

As you can imagine, this is seen as pretty bad news by social conservatives, whose condescension takes the form of knowing what is best for everyone else.

Literal-minded social conservatives sit at the north pole of morality.

I can't argue with that, since nearly all the social conservatives I know are not,, er, literally literal-minded.

But isn't a statement like this:
To me, there are many fewer absolutes, much greater liberty, and an appreciation for the facility of judgement in determining what is in one's own best interest. ...every bit as much of a "moral north pole" as what you ascribe to social conservatives? Such a sentence sounds like you are sneering at someone who isn't as enlightened or morally flexible as you. Thus, any attempt to establish an objective standard of morality is a move "south" in your opinion...or so it seems from the little you've written.

And maybe it is just my other experiences leading me to react this way, but it certainly seems to me that the people screaming loudest about "moral high ground" are mostly just unhappy that their own moral viewpoint isn't the standard.

"Morals", like "Belief Systems" (i.e. religion), are something everyone has. Everyone has some standard upon which they judge a behavior or an opinion to be justified or not, whether they admit it or not. Even complete tolerance is a moral position.
The trick, then, is to make sure your moral position tends to get the results you want it to have. Meaning, if someone believes everyone would be happy if they just dropped their prudish attitude toward sex, then the people engaging in "liberated" sex practices should be demonstrably happier; or if the biggest problem with homosexual marriage is society's prejudice against SSM, then legalization of SSM should demonstrably have no effect on a given society's institution of marriage, rates of divorce, child custody problems, etc.

In other words, what you take as "knowing what is good for everyone" may simply be a greater understanding of what actually works to attain lasting happiness and inner peace. There's no one who complains so much or so bitterly about the unfairness of life or selfishness of society as a liberal (or moderate?) who actually gets what he was demanding.