Shane SmithTraditional Rights and Ethics
I originally wrote this as a response to other comments. But the more consideration I gave it, the more I thought that it might deserve its own space. Many of the notions here are important to the traditional structure and style of American politics, and yet they are being thrown away, ironically by the “traditionalists” or “conservatives.” Take it as you will……
The original discussion began on the first day of something that resembles the social contract, a day lost in the mists of time. The most recent discussion to which I respond began here:
http://oneutah.org/2008/11/18/the-mormon-war-on-gay-people-is-also-a-war-on-eros/
Consider this an open letter to conservative America specifically on the issue of gay rights, but more importantly on the issue of the values and traditions of the nation in general, as illustrated by the example of gay rights.
Many times I have been confronted by the following arguments. They are difficult, not to answer, but to understand. Because the argument requires you to accept a structure of history, science, and indeed epistemology, that cannot be found in the real world. Insert punch-line about being in the “reality based” world here.
Argument the first: “Your freedom doesn’t come from government.”
The trouble, conservative America, is that you seem to have accepted your own straw-man argument. The liberals you demonize don’t want government everywhere, taking care of everything. That would be insanity, as you so often point out. It would be like watching a football game where only referees took the field. But no liberal of which I am aware has ever wanted such a thing. We simply believe that someone should be able to watch the game, impartially, to insure that the basic rules of play are followed. Watching a football game without a ref is much more fun than watching a game of all refs. Right up until someone cheats.
I don’t believe that rights come from governments. I have said that they are protected by them. The rules of the game come from the concept of the game. But we still need refs to call the game and help insure justice. That is one of the very few things government can do.
Argument the second: “America is a traditional nation founded on God/Family/Church/Community/Small Town Values.”
Despite your assertions, America is in fact founded on the concept of the individual. I am not stating this because it makes the argument for gay rights easier. In many ways it makes it harder. It is still the truth. The entire conception of the US government was essentially cribbed from John Locke, who stated exactly that. I can not help that you believe in an alternative history of conservative manufacture. The individual remains the foundation of the tradition. Personally, I, much like you, would like to see certain elements take on a more community based tone. (though generally different areas than you, and a different tone) But I am making my argument within the American philosophical tradition, and so I making it based on that internal reasoning. To return to the football example, that is the game being played, so I have brought my ideas to that game, rather than trying to play basketball on the field.
God is not the foundation of the ideas of the nation, rather god is a choice allowed individuals.
Family is not the basis of national tradition, rather family is a choice allowed an idividual with a full conception of rights.
Religion is not the foundation of the morals and beliefs, rather religion is allowed as a form of expression of them by individual choice.
Community is not conceived of as the building block of a nation, rather it is simply an organization of individuals.
(Note that I personally strongly disagree with this notion, and believe that the idea that any individual is capable of existence outside the social system is one of the gravest of mistakes made by the American tradition, and one that goes against all possible empirical evidence and the very nature of the human animal. But it remains a concept central to the American philosophical tradition. While I may (and have, and will) argue for that conception to change, to deny it is intellectually dishonest and misleading.)
Argument the third: “You say that the burden is on society to show why “rights” shouldn’t be granted because you have no answer to the truth: the burden is on gays, and anyone else, claiming such privileges.”
No. Rights are not granted, not in the American tradition. They exist already as natural rights (see again John Locke) and are only protected by the government. You have the burden of showing why they should not be protected. Your ignorance of the political philosophy of the American tradition is staggering for someone who claims to be protecting tradition. Again, this is not my own conception. I actually prefer rights to be conceived as a variation on Nussbuam and Sen’s capabilities and ethics as non-hierarchical virtue ethics system. I have hope that such a system may one day be adopted. But because I am discussing a public idea in a public space, I am using the traditional public conception of the ideas involved. The fact that you wish to play by your own rules and yet claim to be the tradition is, frankly, intellectually dishonest.
How about if we try a thought experiment. It is one conceived of by John Rawls, in the tradition of American liberal political thought. (note, liberal as defined by political philosophy where even the neo-cons are considered liberal by virtue of their rejection of monarchy) Imagine that you are the sole author of the laws and mores and norms of a society. You can craft it any way that you want. But you do not know what member of that society you would be when you are born. You are free to write rules that discriminate against women, but you might find yourself born female. You are free to write rules that allow slavery, but you might be born a slave.
Now, explain again why you see fit to take away the rights of someone based on their sexual orientation.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:16 am
Truly excellent response, Shane. I’m glad you top-posted this.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:49 am
Yes, Shane, thank you posting this. You make things very very easy. Let me make a living for a while and I will return in full force.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:55 am
I’m still waiting to hear from our friend Kevin Owens on the subject. I wonder if Mero changed Kevin’s mind about bans on gay marriage being a case of the majority restricting the rights and freedoms of gay people.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Shane, to understand that your freedom doesn’t come from government you first need to understand that people create government (you remember, the whole “we the people, of the people, for the people” thing?). Human social institutions are prior to government…the family is prior to government, for example. Civil society, the compilation of private social institutions, is prior to government. Freedom exists independent of government (and, again, you remember the whole “self-evident truths” thing based on “Nature and Nature’s god”?).
In other words, there are human values that government does not create, only expresses. Marriage is one of those things.
As the dedicated individualist you are, no doubt you are thinking that the individual is prior to any social unit. I think you said that communities are only the aggregate of individuals. While true in function, this concept is false in substance. People are social creatures. Our freedom is not individual, it is social.
I certainly believe govenrments are necessary, not even necessary “evils,” but wholly necessary. In fact, as a faithful Latter-day Saint, I believe that governments are ordained of God. So you can quit trying to argue a point that doesn’t need arguing.
What we’re discussing is a “conservative” worldview or political philosopy, aren’t we? And the contention here (correct me if I’m wrong) is that you, a avowed “liberal” (although you argue as a libertarian) are trying to tell me (us) what a conservative believes. You should know, I would be much more interested in having you tell me what a liberal believes.
To your second point, about America being founded upon traditional principles of family…blah, blah, blah. You pin your argument on John Locke. News flash: JL, not a Founding Father. Intellectually stimulating for the real FFs? Certainly. But most disagreed with his emphasis on abstract individualism. Put another way, when the FFs needed him to help make an argument, they used his words. Otherwise, his ideals were foreign to the real FFs. Same thing for John Stuart Mill who came along a little bit later…okay for a quote here and there about liberty, but wholly unrepresentative in opinion to build a nation or anything that required something other than selfishness.
Okay, so now let’s address your boogeymen:
God…actually freedom rests on the idea of a Higher Authority otherwise a tyrant would simply say my army is bigger than yours so my opinion is better than yours. “Nature and Nature’s god” is a key principle of America.
Family…really is the fundamental unit of society. You wouldn’t be an “individual” without family structure. Left a lone man aganst a tyrant, you die; within the confines of a stable and autonomous famliy and community of such families, you live free.
Religion…is a collective moral expression, not a collective of individuals, but a collective of the human experience. As such, it helps to establish and maintain the virtues required to live as a free people. In fact (and I know your itching to go here), the very radical Islamic or Christian religions throughout history prove their centrality to freedom or slavery…one or the other is largely determined by whether or not religions get it right or wrong. Again, your puny individual is no match for forces much greater.
Community…is indeed a group of individuals…bonded together by mutual faith and purpose. Community is purposeful; your puny individual is selfish (which doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a selfish purpose, it just means his selfish purpose doesn’t matter).
Your third point about rights not be granted because they are all natural rights. Not every right is a natural right, first of all. Of course, conservatives believe in natural rights. We also beleive in inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Other rights are wholly civil (meaning granted by government, the “people”). The right to vote? A civil right. The right to a fair trial? A civil right. The right to marry? Not a civil right. It’s a natural right expressed in law for a relationship that government did not create.
I have argued that “gay marriage” is not a civil rights issue. And I can understand why you think it is…because government has to create the arrangement…although you don’t seem that sophisticated in your argument…you simply call any legal struggle “civil rights” if you don’t have what you want. Perhaps we ought to create a new category of rights: whimiscal rights…any persons who want to do anything should have a right to do it regardless of its social value (because they have “individual” value, don’t they)??
For further clarity, because I know how you guys love to divert an argument when you’re losing it…and I can see that the diversions will start with the whole civil rights thing: The black “civil rights” struggle was and wasn’t about true civil rights. The right to vote? Certainly. But the basis of the struggle was moral and natural…”All men are created equal” or they are not. And, without the need for explanation, of course, all human beings are created equal. The right of blacks and whites to intermarry? Certainly. But the basis of the right was natural…a man and a woman marrying. So the legal (Constitutional) manifestation of a civil right can be, and is often, simply a logical legal conclusion based on a natural right.
To John Rawls…this is why he’s an idiot for constructing such a stupid hypothetical simply to make some silly point about how “difficult” lawmaking (read in his mind: discrimination) really is. Our laws are a product of all of us, not just one of us…at least in America. Your point here evaporates…whatever that point is.
But I’ll play along…okay, so say I’m gay and I am solely appointed to make marriage laws. Very well, gays can marry. Now…all I’ve proven is how selfish I am. Okay then, ANYONE can marry because, of course, equal protection demands it!! Now…I’ve just made any compelling state interest in marriage meaningless.
To make matters worse…still playing along…I am creating a right to marry based on something called “sexual orientation.” Don’t know what it means…can’t practically define it under law…can’t point to any replicable scientific evidence that it exists…BUT, what the hell…I’ll put it in statute (maybe even make it a constitutional amendment!!!) and then everyone who feels “oriented” any way they want can have standing in court to claim anything they want to claim against anyone they want to harm (oh yeah, against anyone who has done them an “injustice.”).
Shane, you don’t know what conservatism is. You do know what abstract individualism is, but are torn by its true meaning because you are also, as you admit, deeply drawn to communitarianism (a la Mr. Obama).
This blog site would be much smarter if you guys stuck to introspection about what you are, what you believe, and quit weighing in on things you know very little about. I will so likewise.
And so, back to Glen who started this whole thing, I don’t know what it is like to be gay. Got it. But I do know public policy, history, American government, how we remain a free people…and man…gay sex, gay attraction, gay relationships, and gay marriage have nothing to do with anything that rises to the level of the public interest…unless your textbook is People Magazine or something like that.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Paul, Our freedoms as explicitly enumerated in the constitution are protected BY THE GOVERNMENT.
No government, no freedom. Right?
November 21st, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Cliff, your first sentence is correct. The answer to your second point is no, if you are talking about civil government. Freedom can exist without civil government…because freedom is independent of civil government, though obviously complemented by civil government (as long as civil government doesn’t work against freedom).
November 21st, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Paul - you got Rawls’ model completely wrong. Rawls talked about making the rules “blind” - as if you do not know how or to whom they would apply. In some sense, Rawls’ challenge was to think about yourself as being on the wrong side of any law you make - you pass a law denying inter-racial couples the right to marry. It works until you realize you love someone of another race. You pass a law requiring infertile couples to divorce - works until your son and his wife are infertile.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
“Shane, to understand that your freedom doesn’t come from government”
I stopped reading at that point. I stated, clearly, several times, that freedoms don’t come from governments but are only protected by them, and your answer begins with that line? it is painfully clear that you are neither interested in, nor bothering to read anything we have to say. Attempting to speak to you is simply a waste of time. Why bother then to read your insults?
The next three replies simply add exclamation marks to that fact. I understand your position now. Thank you.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I accept your apology.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Paul,
I understand the logic behind this premise;
But I don’t accept that without more specificity. I.e there are lots of people in Africa who do not enjoy our freedoms and do not have functional gov’t.
Can you name a society without a government whose members have the high level of freedoms we enjoy under our judicial system?
November 21st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Don’t worry Paul, I will get baptized for you…
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/turnabout.php
“The Mormons have this arrogant practice of posthumous baptism — one of the motivations for their huge genealogical libraries is to help them go through the old records, find the names of dead people, and ‘convert’ them to Mormonism. It’s silly and pointless, but it can also be insensitive and offensive, such as when they start baptizing Jews killed in the Holocaust.
So here’s brilliant reversal: convert dead Mormons to…homosexuality. I love the idea. It really doesn’t matter what their sexual orientation in life was, it doesn’t even matter if they were raging homophobes…death changes a lot of things, so let’s simply declare them to have found joy in same sex relationships in the afterlife.
I hope there is an official roster being maintained somewhere. I’m pretending that Brigham Young is a squealing poofter right now, having a wild party with Joseph Smith, dressed in a dusting of sequins and nothing else. That’s an image the elders of LDS need to keep in mind when they’re playing their sanctimonious games with the memory of other people’s revered dead.”
November 21st, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Priceless!
November 21st, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Shane, something tells me that you get “baptized” several times a week at City Creek Park for a variety of anonymous people. But I appreciate the kind thought.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:21 pm
hmmm. i wonder which bath house gorddy-b is hangin’ at.
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:56 am
Paul, did you really write that comment? Your squeaky clean image has lost a little luster in my eyes.
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:19 am
Shane, your 10:45 comment, as Becky says, is priceless.
Paul thinks that a proliferation of WORDS, wins any argument. Babble on Paul.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:49 am
Paul Mero hearts Tom Delay.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:06 am
In case you’re interested, here’s what a piece of human waste thinks about the issue:
Speaking of priceless! Here is what Newt’s gay sister said in reply
Right on the mark Canace! This election really does mark the end of the Reagan era/s. THANK THE GODS!
People like Gingrich are sick and they have been destroying our society by calling everybody they disagree with terrorists/fascists for political gain. They, themselves are the fascists, and need help with their serious problem. Rehabilitation will not be enough; throw away the key!