Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Alright, here's the "short" version
See, Jody, I told you I'd warm up to this once I had the time to devote to it...
First off, the care that I'd originally intended to take in distinguishing between what Jody actually thinks and what the tone of his thesis suggests about what he might think may have gotten muddled in indignance-induced hyperbole. Perhaps I will go back and reassess.
But to come to the point, I suppose that my problem with Jody's thesis is that it appears to be using religion and faith as smokescreens for justifying the belief that we shouldn't have to do things to which we are opposed for some reason.
When I take the time to connect this back to the original point, I may do some personal investigation of what the difference between using power to compel a person to engage in a certain activity and using power to compel a person to desist from engaging in a certain activity.
My take on Dan Savage is that he views so-called virtuecrats as using their various positions of power to compel others to desist from engaging in certain activities that the virtuecrats view as vices, all in order to enhance the corresponding virtue. This can perhaps be summarized as the writing of "Don't do X because it's wrong" into the law.
Now that's not to say that governments don't have an interest in preventing certain activities for reasons other than discouraging moral turpituded. If you subscribe to current drug policy, then criminalizing the trafficking and use of illicit substances not only combats the social ills caused by those activities, but the illegal activity caused on all levels by those activities. If you're a libertarian (maybe lower-case "l" and maybe upper-case "l" - I don't claim to know their politics very well) then you might instead take the position that the use of said illicit substances shouldn't be criminal, but all of the possibly related criminal activities - theft and assault to support a habit, illegal activities while under the influence - should be treated just the same as they would be when done by those who don't use drugs.
Both of those positions have their intellectual and reasonable backers. I have no problem with that.
But it's my view that to tar someone as a so-called sinnercrat, then you'd have to be able to turn the virtuecrat's motivation on its head. You'd have to say that the sinnercrat has the ambition to write "Do X because it is wrong" into the law.
We go back to the issue of governments now having an interest to compel certain activities, as opposed to the previous notion of those governments having an interest to prohibit certain activities. If you believe that making laws requiring the offering of contraception as a health benefit, or the extension of benefits to same sex couples is being done solely to imperil the immortal souls of those being compelled to adhere to the laws, then sure, the sinnercrats are beginning their triumph.
But doesn't that obviously ignore some far-less diabolical compelling interest that a governmental body might have? As I said in the original post, I don't claim to know much about labor law or equal-protection law as it is written in New York State or in California. Under the "right" circumstances, though, why should those who are being expected to follow the law be allowed to discriminate? Because they don't agree with the law? Not to engage in even more hyperbole, but 1960's...lunch counters...separate drinking fountains?
Maybe the thing to do here is to differentiate between civic virtue and moral virtue. This would perhaps lay bare the distinction between those that Dan Savage raises up as (now) moral-virtuecrats, that is, those who seek to enshrine their moral code in the law for "no other reason" than to discourage activity that they view as wrong, and those who go beyond the morals of an act to deal in the civic consequences. I'll leave it to Jody to bring in the sociological data that might explain why one person's moral virtue is another person's civic virtue. But I'll take my first cut at laying out the difference. Since this is all meant to encourage discussion, I'll just throw this out there and let the cards fall where the do.
Civic virtue found in prohibiting an activity -
So far, so good.
Civic virtue found in compelling behavior -
Still no problem here. But now we're treading on political ground where reasonable people can disagree. In the absence of knowledge to contradict my perception, this is an issue of citizens enjoying equal protection. You may have a different perception. You vote yours, and I'll vote mine.
Moral virtue foud in prohibiting behavior -
In my view, a sinnercrat - Jody Neel's or anyone else's, would have to go past the intent of encouraging some civic virtue and go on to find immoral virtue in compelling behavior. Cite a law - that's all I'm asking. I'm not saying that there aren't any out there. I just want one to consider and analyze.
Your thoughts are always accepted in the spirit in which they're offered.
Until the next time, remember:
It takes two to tango, and three to double-dutch.
Comments(0) |
See, Jody, I told you I'd warm up to this once I had the time to devote to it...
First off, the care that I'd originally intended to take in distinguishing between what Jody actually thinks and what the tone of his thesis suggests about what he might think may have gotten muddled in indignance-induced hyperbole. Perhaps I will go back and reassess.
But to come to the point, I suppose that my problem with Jody's thesis is that it appears to be using religion and faith as smokescreens for justifying the belief that we shouldn't have to do things to which we are opposed for some reason.
When I take the time to connect this back to the original point, I may do some personal investigation of what the difference between using power to compel a person to engage in a certain activity and using power to compel a person to desist from engaging in a certain activity.
My take on Dan Savage is that he views so-called virtuecrats as using their various positions of power to compel others to desist from engaging in certain activities that the virtuecrats view as vices, all in order to enhance the corresponding virtue. This can perhaps be summarized as the writing of "Don't do X because it's wrong" into the law.
Now that's not to say that governments don't have an interest in preventing certain activities for reasons other than discouraging moral turpituded. If you subscribe to current drug policy, then criminalizing the trafficking and use of illicit substances not only combats the social ills caused by those activities, but the illegal activity caused on all levels by those activities. If you're a libertarian (maybe lower-case "l" and maybe upper-case "l" - I don't claim to know their politics very well) then you might instead take the position that the use of said illicit substances shouldn't be criminal, but all of the possibly related criminal activities - theft and assault to support a habit, illegal activities while under the influence - should be treated just the same as they would be when done by those who don't use drugs.
Both of those positions have their intellectual and reasonable backers. I have no problem with that.
But it's my view that to tar someone as a so-called sinnercrat, then you'd have to be able to turn the virtuecrat's motivation on its head. You'd have to say that the sinnercrat has the ambition to write "Do X because it is wrong" into the law.
We go back to the issue of governments now having an interest to compel certain activities, as opposed to the previous notion of those governments having an interest to prohibit certain activities. If you believe that making laws requiring the offering of contraception as a health benefit, or the extension of benefits to same sex couples is being done solely to imperil the immortal souls of those being compelled to adhere to the laws, then sure, the sinnercrats are beginning their triumph.
But doesn't that obviously ignore some far-less diabolical compelling interest that a governmental body might have? As I said in the original post, I don't claim to know much about labor law or equal-protection law as it is written in New York State or in California. Under the "right" circumstances, though, why should those who are being expected to follow the law be allowed to discriminate? Because they don't agree with the law? Not to engage in even more hyperbole, but 1960's...lunch counters...separate drinking fountains?
Maybe the thing to do here is to differentiate between civic virtue and moral virtue. This would perhaps lay bare the distinction between those that Dan Savage raises up as (now) moral-virtuecrats, that is, those who seek to enshrine their moral code in the law for "no other reason" than to discourage activity that they view as wrong, and those who go beyond the morals of an act to deal in the civic consequences. I'll leave it to Jody to bring in the sociological data that might explain why one person's moral virtue is another person's civic virtue. But I'll take my first cut at laying out the difference. Since this is all meant to encourage discussion, I'll just throw this out there and let the cards fall where the do.
Civic virtue found in prohibiting an activity -
Drug use should criminalized to prevent the social decay that it engenders.(This leaves out the huge part of the discussion as to whether current drug policy causes or combats the various elements of social decay that drug use and trafficking "causes." That's for another day.)
So far, so good.
Civic virtue found in compelling behavior -
Employers shouldn't be allowed to deny certain benefits to certain classes of employees, even if they disagree with some aspect embodied by that class.(This leaves out a discussion as to which classes of individuals do or should qualify for treatment under equal-protection laws, and such. This qualification may vary between the federal standard, and those of the several states. This is also a discussion for another day.)
Still no problem here. But now we're treading on political ground where reasonable people can disagree. In the absence of knowledge to contradict my perception, this is an issue of citizens enjoying equal protection. You may have a different perception. You vote yours, and I'll vote mine.
Moral virtue foud in prohibiting behavior -
Homesexual activity should be against the law, even when it is consentual, done in the privacy of one's own home, and out of the view of those who would prefer not to be exposed to it.Now it gets problematic, at least for me. These are Dan Savage's virtuecrats.
In my view, a sinnercrat - Jody Neel's or anyone else's, would have to go past the intent of encouraging some civic virtue and go on to find immoral virtue in compelling behavior. Cite a law - that's all I'm asking. I'm not saying that there aren't any out there. I just want one to consider and analyze.
Your thoughts are always accepted in the spirit in which they're offered.
Until the next time, remember:
It takes two to tango, and three to double-dutch.
Comments(0) |
