Christians have become (relatively) comfortable with teen birth (and I think he is right), it’s another classic case of Christians adapting their religion to their culture, rather than having any profound religious effect on their culture.
I’m wondering to what extent this is a feature of all religions and to what extent some religions are more susceptible to change than others. I’ve got a sense that the more iconoclastic a religion is, the more likely it will be unable to resist changing attitudes. Since the social conservativism of the US is hitched so thouroughly to Christianity and especially the evangelical strain of it, we will find that it cannot avoid the pressures of libertinism.
I will try to lay out roughly why I think this might be the case.
I’ve not been pulling my weight in posts for a while and ideas have been running around in my head. So, instead of writing 3 separate posts, I will combine stuff into 1. So here goes…
In a previous post, I wrote about abortion, which of course received some amount of pushback. However, I also got pushback from an unexpected direction. A number of commenters pushed back against trying to get more complete justifications for their beliefs.
Bsycho for instance says:
Does it harm the life or liberty of the uninvolved party?
If the answer is “no”, then the uninvolved party can fish off. Period
And when pushed as to why this is the case, answers:
Because harm to them is the only legitimate criteria by which they have any standing whatsoever to care. Without harm they’re just throwing a hissy fit because the world isn’t conforming to their personal aesthetic tastes. A society attempting to accommodate such people is flushing freedom down the toilet.
I don’t see how Rawls changes anything here. If you’re A, you have the right to do whatever you wish with consenting adults; if you’re B, you have that same right. If you’re B and you whine because you don’t get to block A, then you’re confusing liberty with obedience.
Charitably interpreted, I think that bsycho believes that his answer is sufficient to answer my question. Unfortunately, I disagree with him. One minor quibble is about whether the characterisation he provides is true. After all, we can cash out both sides in terms of liberty. One can on the one hand be free from being enslaved, or on the other hand be free to keep slaves. In cases of conflicting freedoms like this, it is important to explain why the freedom from enslavement trumps freedom to keep slaves. However, the key point of disagreement here is that the argument he gave is not sufficient. I can still ask why we should care about liberty instead of obedience. i.e. there is a problem of how to stop the sceptical regress.
In the comments of my most recent post on abortion, Stillwater says that few people have non-contradictory views. I demurr and point out that I dont have any contradictory beliefs. If I find that I did have contradictory beliefs, I would change them because I think that consistency is a bare minimal requirement. [click to continue…]
One of the key questions of political philosophy is about when it is ever appropriate for a state to use its coercive power. People have often had various answers to his question. The ancients (both the Greeks and the Chinese) thought that the aim of the state was to help its citizens to be virtuous beings. In fact, until the enlightenment (with rare exceptions), this was pretty much the only game in town. That changed.
I live in Singapore and all citizens are required to have an Identity Card. (IC) The IC is very useful. It doubles as a library card, it serves as identification when I apply for overseas visas, or want to open a bank account etc. Someone’s IC also allows me to identify the other party if I get into an accident (i.e. who to pay or who to bill for damages etc etc). At this level (call it level 1) There doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with it. So, what are the problems with having a mandatory IC policy? (Presumably american social security cards are very similar except that they have neither fingerprint nor photo ID capabilities). Making it mandatory means that fake ICs will not pass a barcode test. If its genuine, the IC no will already be in a database.
Lets go a bit deeper. Let’s include fingerprint as well as DNA information in a database which is properly classified and only accessible by the police. When children register for their ICs, it is easy to take their fingerprints and DNA at the same time. The upshot of something like level 2 is that criminal investigations become a lot more accurate. DNA evidence can place people at crime scenes. This would also prevent bullshit things like deporting american citizens. Same question as before: what are the problems with making this mandatory?
Let’s go even deeper: Let’s call the following level 3 Let’s include stuff like income etc from the taxes that you file inside a database and link it up with your IC. So, if you are going to the hospital, instead of asking you to fill out a form for your insurance (as I see people doing in american TV shows) all the nurse has to do is to scan your card to pull up relevant information like your income and the amount of money in you Health Savings Account. The nurse can then provide you with an appropriate means tested service. This makes it easier to means test medical care and other social support services. It also cuts down on the red tape. Getting seen by a doctor become much easier.
I’m inclined to think that even level 3 would not violate any more fundamental rights than familiar forms of taxation. Are there liberal or libertarian arguments against this? Note, this is not an RFID system which allows you to be tracked. All this does is make things easier and more transparent on a lot of things. What liberty related reasons would we have to suppose in order for us to consider this a bad idea?
I like to think of myself as a liberaltarian. I think I would qualify for the label because I’m big on the Rawls-Hayek fusion thing (Or more accurately, the Rawls + public choice + economic consensus). Yet, I have certain affinities with a social/cultural conservatism. Here are some of my social conservative thoughts. (No, not an oxymoron)
By request (or at least approval), I have produced a post on reasonable-ness. Note that this has nothing to do with certain kinds of legal standards
People often say that something is reasonable to believe, or surely that reasonable people can disagree. But often when saying this, people fail to specify what their standards of reasonability are. Of course, we know what the highest epistemic standards require. The very highest of standards require nothing short of sound arguments. i.e. arguments in which the conclusions necessarily follow from the premises and in which the premises are true. But by that route requires us to reserve judgement on a great many issues including for example, the existence of other minds, or the external world or even about whether or not we should have high epistemic standards in the first place.
Ilarum is once again at the breach fighting all the wrong battles. He imprudently charges where I would prefer to reserve judgement. This time however, he may have a sliver of a point. I do not so much disagree with him, as think he may be overstating his conclusions. Hi, I’m back again as this Opposite [...]
Let me introduce my twin brother Ilarum, who of course tends to be wrong on a lot of things. Nevertheless, Today is his day to make a fool of himself shine. My twin is a lot better at words than I am, but do not get beguiled by his smooth tongue. Let him say his [...]
There is a semi-grand blogospheric pseudo-tradition called opposite day. On opposite day… atheists do their best to argue that theism is correct and the theists do their best to argue that atheism is correct. Perhaps some Jews can argue that Christianity is correct and vice versa. The point is to get you to put yourself in [...]
Jesse Ewiak writes: If I go to a doctor and he tells me I need this procedure and it turns it out it ruins my life, it’s perfectly reasonable to blame the doctor. Yet, I say the same thing about a banker and I hear calls of personal responsibility. I guess I should’ve known medical [...]
Ladies and Gentlemen this being the latest in a round of posts on democracy, is going to be long. I also promise that it will be bizarre. I would like to talk about two features of democracies, which each,, in themselves are essential, but create a particular strange problem when found together. These two features [...]
Fellow Gentleman Tom Van Dyke recently wrote the following: For if I were an atheist member of Congress, I’d still follow GWash on the political and social utility of religion. No big deal. Religion, like paying taxes, is for the little people. The interesting thing about Mr Van Dyke’s argument is that it purports to [...]
Commenter Ktward writes And so I’m wondering, E.D.: If you weren’t speaking to Forbes readers and the Boys Club that is the League (not a criticism, simply an observation), might your take on OWS be less guarded? Granting that she is just making an observation, it seems that her observation is correct. The gentle-persons in the [...]
There seems to be a libertarian tendency to celebrate gridlock. Given that this is running off the top of my head, the latest example by Prof Hanley can’t afford either “low key” government or any gridlock…government that brooks no dissent is all I currently have. While I may be over-interpreting him, I do remember lots of [...]
Its election season again in the US (when is it not). Election season just finished for us a month ago in Singapore. So, something I want to ask you guys is this: This is my PM. Would you vote for him if he were running for office where you live? If yes, why? If not, why [...]
In a semi-recent post by fellow Gentleman JamesK, commenter Creon Critic gave an ineresting comment that bears a reply Take the issue of trade liberalization discussed in this thread. Competing values include preserving a way of life and expressing disapproval at exploitative working conditions in developing countries. Specific values issues that might come up: What cultural [...]
I am currently taking a course on the epistemology of disagreement and social epistemology. One of the topics that came up was about what to do about experts.
Our estimable host Erik Kain has invited me to be part of the main page. It seems to be a tradition for people to drop their nicknames and adopt a more formal full name. Pat Calahan became Patrick. RTod became Tod Kelly and so on. My full name is Anantharaman Muralidharan. Given that my name is so long, [...]
Thursday Blognado: Wargaming My Thursday Blognado post is a guest post at Mindless Diversions wherein I explain why I abandoned miniature wargames produced by Games Workshop, and why Warmachine is my favourite wargame. ( 0 comments)
The Lessons of 1984 The primary lesson of George Orwell’s 1984 is that [my political opponents] are truly totalitarian in intent. The entire culture of [my political opponents] revolves around doublethink, such as [insert reference to something that is contradictory, but only if you put it the way I put it]. And don’t get me started on [my political opponents]‘s newspeak, what with [insert reference to or example of Political Correctness or alternately a way that political opponents frame an issue]. I truly fear if [my political opponents] gain and hold on to political power, 1984 will cease to be fiction. ( 15 comments)
Another from Edmond Rostand Rostand’s second poem from Les Musardises, entitled “The Bedroom.” For my English translation I chose rhymed couplets, though I admit with BlaiseP that there’s a procrustean quality to some of them.
Incidentally, the author dedicates a short essay to explaining the title of the book. Musardise is not a word in standard French, and figuring out a good English neolo-translation of the title is an interesting task in itself. ( 4 comments)
~ Around the League
Journeys in Alterity: Remaking Star Wars ~ Feb. 23. 2012. ~ The Star Wars films have their cinematic gems--and lightsabers, w... Read More
~
Mindless Diversions: Confessions! ~ Feb. 23. 2012. ~ (This guess post was written by our very own James K!)
My firs... Read More
American Times: Does The Cybersecurity Act Of 2012 Mark The Beginning Of The War On Cyber-terrorism? ~ Feb. 22. 2012. ~ The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 is the latest effort by Congress to do something about the threat of cyber attacks and cyber crime. Fortunately, and perhaps thanks to the efforts to quash SOPA and PIPA, the Act is quite a bit more restrained in scope tha... Read More
American Times: Did Foxconn Hide Underage Workers During Inspections? ~ Feb. 22. 2012. ~ Foxconn has opened its doors to the Fair Labor Association and ABC News – but is it hiding something? After reports of poor working conditions and worker suicides at ‘s Chinese vendors’ manufacturing facilities, a number of groups hav... Read More
~
American Times: What A Crowdsourced Bike Looks Like ~ Feb. 22. 2012. ~ Jess Zimmerman explains: This combination bike and scooter is nominally the work of fancypants designer Philippe Starck, but that’s partly because “everyone in Bordeaux, France” doesn’t have as much label cachet. (More than “everyone in Norma... Read More
~
Journeys in Alterity: Dust to Dust ~ Feb. 22. 2012. ~ [caption id="attachment_3632" align="alignleft" width="151" capti... Read More
~
American Times: David Cross on the contradictory language of the right ~ Feb. 22. 2012. ~ A couple people have directed me to this clip (which I would embed if it were allowed.) David Cross says what I was trying to say about the double-speak on the right much better – or at least much funnier – than I do. This is more evidence that while the right is very good at [...] Read More
Kimmi 
Ryan Bonneville 
Elias Isquith 
Murali 
James K 
Alan Scott 
Patrick Cahalan 
Will Truman 
Will H.