Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Calculator & The Bible
Ross Douthat wrote a powerful piece last week that used the upcoming SSM ruling as a jumping-off point for a larger discussion about the history of social predictions and SoCons’ strong (if imperfect) record on the matter. I commend the whole piece to everyone, but this passage on the left’s increasing prejudice towards quantitative analysis — to the exclusion of all other modes of thought — stood out:
[T]he modern liberal mind is trained to ask for spreadsheet-ready projections and clearly defined harms, and the links that social conservatives think exist aren’t amenable to that kind of precise measurement or definition. How do you run a regression analysis on a culture’s marital iconography? How do you trace the downstream influence of a change in that iconography on future generations’ values and ideas and choices? How do you measure highly-diffuse potential harms from some cultural shift, let alone compare them to the concrete benefits being delivered by the proposed alteration? How do you quantify, assess and predict the influence of a public philosophy of marriage — whatever that even means — on manners and morals and behavior?
Of course, there is nothing in traditionalist thinking that precludes serious data dives; indeed, a traditionalist should hold that his positions will very much be validated by statistics, provided the right questions are posed and investigated dispassionately. Nor, for that matter, should a data-focused researcher be allergic to tradition, which — through the forces of trial, error, and selection — should be expected to form a great many gems that need only a little sunlight to shine. Indeed, Hayek went so far as to say in The Fatal Conceit that “all the benefits of civilization, and indeed our very existence, rest… on our continuing willingness to shoulder the burden of tradition.”
The fact is that thinking through a problem and working (or muddling) through one involve different faculties. Both are applicable to almost any imaginable circumstance, though the particulars of how — and in what proportion to each other — vary immensely with circumstance. Everyone knows that traditionalism can save us from some follies while leading us to others, but the same applies to empiricist modes of thinking as well.
Tradition and research work best when each is used to check and reexamine the others’ findings. If quantitative social research yields predictions that contradict well-established and successful traditions, that’s more than sufficient cause to go back and make sure the researchers made the correct assumptions and didn’t miss anything (Douthat makes a strong case for doing so with regard to many questions regarding sexual mores and marriage). On the other hand, the simple fact of something being tradition doesn’t automatically put it beyond empirical questioning (Douthat similarly points out that a great many of Robert Bork’s more dire predictions about these same subjects did not materialize).
Balance and judgement — as always — are very much in need.
Published in Culture, Law
Oh, Edmund Burke. So that’s where Mussolini got it from. Good to know.
In modern America, of course, the idea that liberty is “order” imposed by the government is what is called “liberal.” Because the progressive fascist utopians have stolen the word “liberal,” and perverted it. Thus, those of us who are truly liberal are now known as libertarians.
Oh, and by the way, Burke was a leading opponent of democracy. He was an aristocrat and an elitist. He would be right at home on the Editorial Board of the NY Times.
I admit I’ve been overly pessimistic lately. It just seems like the country has fallen apart and all we’re concerned with insane liberties such as SSM. Normally I am not this pessimistic. And for the record, ordered liberty doesn’t imply a huge amount of overbearing laws. Just some critical ones that reinforce virtue.
Interesting. Liberals always called Conservatives Nazis or Mussolini’s. There was a time when those on the right absolutely supported the police and military in opposition to Liberals. There was a time when Conservatives supported Christian virtues and a Christian world view. I’ve seen the right radically change the last few years. Libertarians have turned that upside down.
It would be nice if you stopped pretending that Christian libertarians don’t exist, if only because most Ricochetians don’t appreciate being treated like nonentities.
Now, Frank Soto, he is paid. If he didn’t exist, I suppose that would save Ricochet some money. But probably not as much as would be lost if the ordinary members who so identify didn’t exist.
Leftists (who you call “liberals”) distort language all the time. The Nazis were socialists. Indeed, “Nazi” means National Socialist. Fascism was also a leftist movement, much admired among American leftists at the time. I urge you to read Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism.
You simply cannot use the terms liberal and conservative as they are used today interchangeably with how they were used 80 years ago. The meanings have changed dramatically. In fact, in many ways the meanings have reversed themselves.
I keep hearing this. It is not serious thinking. People who think this way should think, a fortiori, that God either does not exist or means to kill them.
Then, too, if you think it is not just Nature’s responsibility–or God’s–but also society’s responsibility to keep people alive, then surely, every death is an indictment of the society or state or both–or at least family & friends!–such that any appeal to any of these things should be laughed at just as quickly as ol’ nature.
What?
Well, we are meant to die in the end. If we didn’t, how would we get to heaven? ;-)
The rules for a Christian are: no self-murder. You have a duty to live, no matter how much you’d rather not. Indirectly killing yourself through non-action is sometimes OK. But going out of your way to procure your own death is not.
The rules for a conservative are: you have to take responsibility for yourself. Don’t be a burden on others if you can at all help it.
Most often, the twin duties of “don’t murder yourself” and “don’t burden others” are in alignment. Sometimes they aren’t – or overwhelmingly appear not to be to the individual in question. And yes, that really does make his life harder to justify.
Is my having not passively died in childhood a burden? I cannot fulfill the role of a healthy SoCon woman, so perhaps so…
If one can argue against the understanding of nature–human nature or nature aside from human nature or nature as a whole–on the ground that some accident or some defect can prove deadly, then that should be just as strong an argument against God.
Arguing in favor of nature–at least as human nature–does imply that nature is somehow connected to what is good for human beings, individually & together. But not that nature simply overcomes chance. (The argument from nature is older than the modern conception of causation that says, there is no purpose & therefore no accident!)
Arguing against nature on the basis of bad things happening to oneself or others should be even stronger in the case of arguing against God’s benevolence or existence: People who believe in God believe that God is provident.
Yes, but when is the end? When does God mean this or that person to die?
Titus, I think you might have misunderstood me.
The Appeal to Nature is an argument that posits natural things as morally superior or more trustworthy than artificial things.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say it has no value — there are some moral principles that can be derived from Nature — but I find it hugely underwhelming for the reasons Midge implies: i.e., that applying the Appeal with any kind of consistency leads to bad conclusions, such as her (otherwise) inevitable early death.
The right *still* supports the police and military. Have you not been paying attention to the Baltimore and Ferguson coverage?
Unfortunately, I can’t agree with you that there was *ever* a time in this country before, say, 1950, when being conservative automatically meant being Christian. Throughout the history of the country, militant religion without exception was deployed on the side of “progress” and “enlightened civilization.” Abolition, Prohibition, Social Security…all these were pushed by radical religious organizations, and opposed by (comparatively) secular conservatives. What’s more, as a non-Christian I don’t appreciate being written out of the movement.
It’s possible–but I’m not sure. The distinction is not between natural & artificial–this seems to be a really modern invention–but between natural & conventional. A lot of this depends on how you understand nature. & all of that depends on whether you think of nature as purposeful or not.
So the natural-artificial opposition is a problem for any number of reasons. Even before you get to the implications of the artificial–that to know something is to make it–there are things like cold & disease or catastrophe. No one who says nature is the guide to the good says those things are good. Or spoilt eggs!
Please don’t argue with Tom when he’s right.
I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to acknowledge this important understanding.
It may be a modern invention, but opposing nature and artifice seems to be the most common way to do it here at Ricochet.
I wish I knew what this meant, but I don’t.
Obviously!
I am super-unsure of how SoCons are expected to understand nature, and what they think they mean by arguing from nature. This causes me no little distress, since I am part SoCon myself – traditional virtues aren’t my political identity, but they definitely do shape my life!
I see nature-nature, for example, in formal scientific studies or in David Attenborough documentaries. I see human-nature, a body of knowledge related to what it means to be human. Wilderness… physical reality… the fact that humanity, though free, is not infinitely malleable… will the real Nature please stand up?
(Somehow, I think when SoCons appeal to Nature, they aren’t appealing to the periodic table or general relativity… Many also want to appeal to Nature, but not evolution…)
Huh. Does deciding whether “nature” is “purposeful” actually matter? There is part of me that doubts “purposeful” even carries much meaning in this context. Creation is beautiful, but the meaning of beauty is notoriously elusive.
What occurs to me when I read your list is that those are the very institutions that are under attack by the Left through the power of the state. These institutions are far from useless when they are robust and healthy, but they have been beat back by an increasingly corrupt state.
As for the human impulse toward hedonism, it’s not that it’s so strong, it is that it is relentless — an endless drip that inevitably bores through solid rock. That this impulse needs to be checked is pretty universally acknowledged by those on the Right. Our system of government was designed to check it, as were the institutions you listed. The question is, to what do you resort when the government has been corrupted and used as a weapon to corrupt the institutions? What do you do when you are out of checks?
In my view, human nature has won. Checkmate.
I rarely see SoCons using the appeal to nature when it comes to deploying cancer drugs or modern premature birth technology. All of these are unnatural. Yet ARTs should be banned because…nature.
The amazing thing about humanity is that we can transcend our nature for higher purposes. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this the entire conceit of conservative thinking? That man is a fallen creature that never the less has the capacity to live the good life?
Worse, their devotion to keeping children alive by unnatural means means girls like me survive and grow into women kept alive by unnatural means. And we are expected, as good conservative women, to be as fearless of the “natural” phenomenon of pregnancy as those women lucky enough to not be sustained by unnatural means.
Sorry, but when your body is already in an altered state of health, sustained by an artificial balancing act, pregnancy is never going to feel “natural”.
I’m actually very sympathetic to arguments that question the wisdom of relying on artificial birth control as much as modern culture does. Nonetheless, telling a woman who should not naturally be alive that she is somehow a wuss for not being open to getting pregnant at the drop of the hat just doesn’t make sense.
I’m not sure I’m up for arguing from nature -my objections are largely of the Kantian Deontology variety -humans are to be treated as ends in themselves, not means to another end. Designer babies violate this rule, adoption does not (nor does lifesaving medicine unless intended to prolong pain for the doctor’s enjoyment). Adopting a baby without any intent to raise that child as an independent being would be equally objectionable, and yes -the natural childbirths that exist as the pet projects of the parents are objectionable as well. There’s a lot to object to in the American family.
Is this how SoCons understand nature? I don’t know. SoCons tend to see a lot obligations growing out of natural relationships -thus parents have obligations to treat their children certain way by virtue of parenthood, the same as siblings do, and this remains true even if the obligation is not freely chosen. Similar logic extends to local communities. The objection to artificial or conventional obligations is that they profess to sever the pre-existing natural obligations. Thus, IVF simultaneously makes parenthood a contract of convenience and children a commodity of objectionally self-concerned parents.
Are you arguing that parents should never desire to breed prior to doing so in order to not commodify the child? In the world of modern birth control technology this is divorced from any semblance of reality.
It would surprise me if this were Sabr’s argument, though it definitely is some others’.
I don’t even know what that means. My assertion is that children are people and to be treated as such, in their lives and their creation. I’m not saying parents’ motives have to be entirely pure, but the parents who’s desires begin and end with “I want an heir who will do everything I want them to do and be my mark on the world” are doing something objectionable. There’s nothing wrong with wanting children, just as there’s nothing wrong with wanting employees -but in both cases they are people first, and to treat them as self-improvement projects or lotus-eater-machines is to enslave them. I don’t actually think birth control causes this kind of enslaving -though it may contribute to the culture that does. But some of my objections to specific techniques are more pedestrian. In IVF they create a dozen embryos, select one, and destroy the rest -I should think the parallels to slavery should be blindingly obvious. That’s as morally reprehensible as raising puppies for the fighting cages. More so.
Merina and Rachel have written fairly extensively on keeping children a “surprise”.
Certainly maintaining any sort of normal marital relationship with my husband without artificial planning of any kind could have produced some fairly risky surprises. If I were as healthy as Rachel, I might have gone for it anyhow, but that’s exactly the catch.
When Rachel called exclusive use of natural family planning a “luxury good”, she was being exceptionally candid, I think.
Well, I would rather avoid this fight for the time being.
I’d rather try to arrive at some common agreement, if what I say seems sensible to you.
Shall we say that speech is unnatural? Music? They require arts. How about midwifery & carpentry? They require arts as well.
The arts are not in opposition to nature, unless we shall say one of two things: There is no human nature–humans are unnatural, & therefore so is art. Or art is against human nature. These opinions seem extreme–one denies all we see & recognize about ourselves; the other denies all we see & recognize in the world around us.
Perhaps we can agree on a middle position–the arts help man deal with the world in which he lives & tend to signal man’s unique power of reasoning. We may add, we see signs of intelligence in other animals; some, too, do some of the deeds that we do in our arts. This would suggest the connection between arts & nature. But the arrival of reason is different–we are then, & only then, confronted with nature as a question–this no other animal seems to confront. This seems simply human.
I’m fully aware of the actual nature of Fascism as a leftist phenomena. My point was that Liberals use it against conservatives to emphasize a dictatorial approach to culture, just as you did.
Well, in a earlier comment above I qualified it as saying pure Libertarians and not what is lately being termed conservatarian. The pure Libertarians – the Ayn Randers – are not conservative in any way. If I lump all gradations of Libertarians together, it’s out of a need to simplify.
Until the 20th century there was overwhelming consensus to Christian virtues. Then there started some dissent, but from the 1960s on have they really been undermined and politically polarized to a right/left split. And when i say Christian, I really mean Judeo-Christian. I don’t know if you’re Jewish, but I think the editors of Commentary magazine (a conservative jewish magazine) would agree.
OK, I appreciate that you’re trying to make distinctions. The following may not matter to you, because we can’t all keep every nuance of other tribes’ distinctions straight, but I’ll say it just to put the information out there:
There is no real good definition of “pure libertarian”, and if there were it’s not clear that Objectivists (the devotees of Ayn Rand) would be it. What is pretty clear is that the geekiest libertarians judge libertarian purity based on beliefs about government structure, not cultural beliefs.
Thus, since I am a Christian with anarcho-capitalist sympathies (anarcho-capitalists are considered by many the most “extreme” libertarians – moreso than Objectivists), I score “100% libertarian” on a lot of political quizzes.
“100% libertarian” on many reputable political quizzes tells you nothing about cultural affiliation – it actually can’t.
Actually, because of my Christian beliefs and anarcho-capitalist sympathies, my husband and I have looked at properties in a nearby Christian Homeowner Association. No, I’m not kidding – one of them private villages where everyone’s the same denomination and goes to the same church. The people were sweet, but the worship music kinda sucked. So we passed.
Well, then you haven’t been listening to Rand Paul and the Libertarians over at Reason Magazine that argue the police are overly aggressive and militarized, and actually advocate reduction of their protective equipment and firepower. You haven’t seen their isolationsits positions and reductions to defense spending.
Midge, when I speak of pure Libertarians, I am alluding to the positions advocated over at Reason magazine. To me they are proponents of a philosophy that is absolutist. In my limited experience here on Ricochet, I would say that most of you who consider yourselves Libertarians are more conservatarian, a sort of new distinction made by that fellow (can’t remember his name) at National Review.
I wonder how many of the Libertarians here read and support the positions of Reason mag. Might make for a good post.