Skip to main content

Absolute fudge

KBJ takes on Jonah Goldberg's question from NRO's The Corner here. Very interesting reading. Oh, and the question? Are liberals or conservatives more likely to say that "the ends justify the means?" I think Jackson is spot on in his conclusions:
Liberals are more likely than conservatives to allow the ends to justify the means. We might say that while most liberals believe in rights, they take these rights to be defeasible or overridable by sufficiently good ends. Conservatives, it seems to me, are more likely to resist such overriding. If I’m right, then the average conservative is closer than the average liberal to the absolute deontologist [some things are always wrong, no matter what] end of the spectrum.
Liberals are more likely to fudge absolutes (they're so oppressive!), even when presented in the form of human rights (the penumbras and permutations of Roe, anyone?), but Jackson is right to point out that they don't have a monopoly on the practice. The phenomenon of one's "sense of justice overtaking charitable good sense" is common to both, but liberalism has greater conceptual problems with absolutes than does conservatism. Being Rationalists and, I would argue, too confident of their thinking ability, liberals can too easily seek to rationalize anything. Conservatives can fall in this trap as well, but it is harder. This is a small part of why I will choose the 'stupid party' over the 'evil party' every time. This is a big subject, so I can't say exactly where I fall. There's too many issues to consider. Probably I'm a non-absolute deontologist, with a few strong deontologist leanings. I do tend to fall into the middle of the pack on most political scales, albeit with a strong desire to see life, family and community upheld over bureaucracy, "professionalization" and ideology. That makes me mildly right wing over all and very right wing on a few things.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi