Political liberalism and conservatism are both essential to a good life

We coo-ell as ever Mark. I am a tad robust I realise. I’m glad Pirsig works for you. Haidt - rightly, scientifically - proposes a biological basis for conservatism and liberalism. He admits his liberal, atheist, privileged bias but that that is useless if one wants to be a true liberal and include the conservative majority. He goes only too far, though I wish he were right, in proposing group selection in evolution, which… conservative science does not accept. Haidt - unlike Pirsig - is not critical of society, he is constructive. All part of walking naked - vulnerable - together.

When you say conservative science I assume you mean mainstream science. But when you say they don’t accept it I don’t know whether you mean they haven’t been convinced enough to be able to verify it or that they are convinced group selection cannot happen. It seems to me that there isn’t another species where group dynamics, even if important to success, is as complex as it is with us. Studying ourselves is fraught with observer bias danger. So I’m not sure how well suited science is for evaluating the claim.

Funny, I don’t read Pirsig as critical of society in the purely negative sense. Far from it. His criticism establishes the necessity of societal institutions to preserve the norms necessary to preserve itself for the sake of the vital role it plays in our biological survival. It wouldn’t be fair to expect you to grab your volume and cite passages for obvious reasons but I do disagree with your interpretation.

1 Like

? Source please. In the Olde Worlde that is not a signifier of the far-left at all. Or Cuba or Venezuela or any remaining vestiges of Marxism in Africa or SE Asia.

1 Like

MarkD. First off, you’re right. Pirsig is right. I misunderstood, being allergic to language that seems critical of human nature. I’m ashamed to say. It was skimming and latching on to ‘moral and social nightmare’ and taking it out of context. My apologies to Pirsig.

As for group selection, we’ve been here before I recall. It is an imparsimonious concept, we just haven’t tried hard enough to explain behaviour with individual gene carrier selection. Until we’ve exhausted that, we’re not justified in proposing group selection, in making a group alone a primary vehicle.

1 Like

What about for within a species whose bread and butter is passed along culture? We might expect cultural differences which lead to better social cohesion to be a difference maker.

We might, but I fear that these are epi-phenomena. Transient, emergent with no genetic feedback potential. I love the Thursday night applause we give to the NHS and other workers, I thank the bin men, shop workers. But we’ll revert to business as usual as soon as possible. I just don’t see any environmental pressure lasting long enough to change us genetically for the better. And if it could, it would also be for the worse; there’d be some opportunity cost to our humanity.

Well there we agree. I’m always thinking evolution is finished for human beings, not counting the effects of immunity to massive pandemics or something else out of the ordinary. I don’t think our life choices feedback in any meaningful way on who breeds or what traits are selected for. Even someone like me who knew early on I’d never want to add to the amount of human biomass on this planet doesn’t just die out. I’m a son of a Methodist and there will be plenty more who think as I do and for similar reasons on account of cultural and intellectual reasons unconnected to reproduction.

1 Like

Thank you for the welcome as well as for sharing your opinion. We are in agreement in being concerned about contact tracing.

As for vaccines:the right side is so loud in my ears these days that I had forgotten that there was a left side to it! It is interesting how this seems to be something they both agree on. I have been reading a bit about the swine flu vaccine debacle from 1976 and am wondering if that is one of the things that has influenced anti-vax thinking?

How would you implement something like that? If the child is homeschooled that doesn’t seem to solve the problem because most homeschoolers are involved in numerous activities outside of the home that brings them into contact with others. Would they be forbidden from doing anything outside the home?

Also, I realize that this is a little off-topic from your original post and I’m sorry for hijacking your thread a bit. I will do better in the future. :slight_smile:

I don’t think it would be simple. But if parents of children who cannot be immunized at least need to know clearly what places they could be sure their kids were safe they can at least plan around activities which include those dangerous to their own. To my mind not vaccinating is a choice while being unable to vaccinate is not. Choosing not to vaccinate should be understood as a decision to be excluded from some spheres for the general safety of others.

You are correct that it really isn’t Left or Right. Left/Right labels don’t mean much any more.

Some sources, hastily Googled
:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/26/the-biggest-myth-about-vaccine-deniers-that-theyre-all-a-bunch-of-hippie-liberals/

No, it’s predominantly right, as those links support.

Quit disagreeing with me - I’m trying to be reasonable and not pile all the blame on the other guys! :wink:

Many of the Anti-vaxers I encounter do not seem to have any particular religious stance. They quote junk-science articles, not the Bible.

3 Likes

Hey Dan, I’m agreeing with the articles.

The first doesn’t mention vaccination at all.

The second needs a subscription to read again, but I don’t recall it mentioning left wing anti-vaxers.

The third says libertarians, Republicans, conservatives. All somewhat right of centre.

In the Olde Worlde there is no such thing as a climate change denying, YEC, anti-vax socialist. Now Liberal Democrats…

No time to chase this down today …

I mean, I could be wrong, but that has not been my experience. Maybe I’ll go ask in one of the anti-vax FB groups.

A more recent opinion article:

https://amp.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article235028692.html

And this was out today:

1 Like

I would basically agree with the promise of the discussion, but I tend to look at questions from the perspective of the One and the Many. The bias of the One is for stability and is thus conservative, while the bias of the Many is for change and is thus liberal.

We need both conservativism and liberalism because we need both stability and change. Jesus teaches us that we have stability in our relationship to God and change in our relationships with others We get into trouble when we make idols of our ideologies.

We become polarized when we for get than everyone else is just like us trying to make sense of of a confusing world. It is not “conservative” nor “liberal” to demonize people who disagree with your politics, nor is it Christian.

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.