When the CEO of Mozilla recently stepped down amid anger about his political views, many on the political left and right worried that this was a sign of intolerance, a sort of totalitarian progressivism. Is it?
Philosophers call it the “paradox of tolerance”: defending tolerance may require intolerance of intolerance. Is this liberalism turning illiberal?
Liberal democracies like the United States protect citizens’ freedom of speech, religion, and conscience. So you should be free to argue against gay marriage, right? Absolutely, at least as far as the government and laws are concerned. You are also free to believe and argue that all blacks should be deported to Africa if you like. Being a bigot is not a crime. But that doesn’t mean others cannot be angered by your beliefs and protest against them. Legal rights and protections put limits on the government, not the people. Views the majority in society see as distasteful will be punished in the court of public opinion. You are not protected from the consequences of your speech, only from the government trying to suppress it. That majority may be wrong, of course, but more on that below.
The second problem is when people say things like “isn’t pushing a person out of a job because of his/her beliefs just as bad as doing the same to a gay person?” Frankly, no. Sexuality, like race, sex, gender, physical capabilities, ethnicity, etc. are immutable aspects of identity. They are NOT beliefs. Arguing with someone, pushing them out of a job, refusing them service, etc. on the basis of their identity is discrimination. It is unfair, unjustified, and unjustifiable in most circumstances (you may want a black actor to play a black role in a movie, so there are a few exceptions, of course). Beliefs are changeable and, unlike identities, they may be harmful to others.
The harm caused by beliefs is how we judge where to draw lines. This is highly problematic, however. Throughout history, people have been harassed, cast out of societies, and even killed because they held beliefs that challenged the status quo. This continues today, though in “liberal” countries people, thankfully, are usually not killed for their beliefs. We rightly condemn racist beliefs. We also limit freedom of religion and speech when these may harm others, for example when Christian Scientists deny their children life-saving medical treatment or when fundamentalists incite violence in the name of their god(s).
But people have been treated poorly for all manner of beliefs many in society thought were harmful at the time. Where do we draw the line? The test is harm. Does preventing gays from marrying cause harm? Those effected would surely say so (take me, who was prevented for 10 years from moving back to my home country due to marriage and immigration discrimination). Does believing the sun is at the center of the solar system? Not directly, but if it spread, it would damage the progress of knowledge that benefits humanity. Likewise, creationism is not harmful unless it spreads by being taught to children who are then deprived of a proper education. You are thus free to teach your children creationism, but the government should not teach things for which there is a consensus that they are not true. At the same time, such beliefs should not be “respected” in the sense that they remain unchallenged. This is how a liberal society functions.
What do I mean by “challenge”? The judgment about which beliefs are harmful will always, to some extent, be subjective and relative to current social conditions. Try as we might, we cannot escape the societal context in which we exist and cannot see things completely “objectively.” Harm is a good guiding principle, but it is imperfect. In most cases, the best move is to counter ideas rather than people. The best way to do that is through open debate. This means exercising our right to free speech to call out things we consider harmful. Beyond what the law says, however, we also need to listen and take time to consider.
As for Eich, a gay commentator on the Colbert Report, an American comedy talk show with a large following, recently opined that protesting against and boycotting the state of Arizona for its proposed anti-gay law was OK, but suggested that what happened to Eich was not. In fact, Mozilla customers angry about its CEO’s political views protested and boycotted, exercising their rights to free speech and their economic right to choose. There was nothing illiberal about it. A portion of the United States has come to realize that preventing same-sex couples from marrying is just as wrong as preventing any other two consenting adults from doing so. Saying otherwise is increasingly indefensible (literally: there are no good reasons for it, that side has lost the debate). That is free speech and open debate in action, resulting in intolerance of an intolerant view. A liberal democracy in action, in other words.
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Friday, April 11, 2014
Thursday, October 3, 2013
When don't we have to respect others' opinions?
"I'm entitled to my opinion" is something people say when they've started to get offended. The correct response to this may be "sure, sorry," or "yes, you are. Now, as I was saying..." depending on what you're talking about. It should be the former if you find yourself in some stupid argument about taste, like "chocolate ice cream is definitely better than vanilla." If it's about something with objective elements, then fair game, as long as you're concentrating on those. But it's not so easy, right?
Since my readers are mostly liberal, I'll start of with an example in which a liberal shut down a discussion because he viewed it as offensive. There was an article about "new germ theory." The author argued that many diseases we believe are genetic cannot possibly be so because anything that reduces the likelihood that you will reproduce even by 1% will be eliminated from the gene pool within x (I don't remember the number) generations. He thus argued that diseases like MS, heart disease, and many cancers were caused by viruses. (By the way, he did present actual evidence of this, too, so there's something to the line of reasoning). Whether he is right is beside the point, for the crucial part came toward the end, when he mentioned that homosexuality ought to reduce the likelihood of reproduction and therefore ought not to exist. The fact that he does, he reasoned, suggested that it came from somewhere else, perhaps some sort of infection.
The person I mentioned commented in class that he found the article interesting up until that point, but then he stopped reading. He has many gay friends, he said, and this sort of bigoted talk was simply unacceptable. Stepping through the looking glass into bizarroworld, I, the gay man, spoke up to defend the author. Why? His idea was uncomfortable, to be sure. Gays have long fought not to be seen as "sick," and here was a guy trying to throw this back at them again. But the fact that I do not like where this is going does not mean that any such sort of line of investigation should be halted. There was no suggestion that the author was using this to, say, deprive gays of their rights or lower their status. He was a rebel in the world of disease research and was thus also asking a politically incorrect, but valid, question, "Why is there homosexuality?" while attempting to rule out certain reasons and put forth a more likely explanation, as he saw it. He is not (necessarily) a homophobe for asking any more than someone asking why blacks in America earn less than other racial groups is (necessarily) racist. It's the context (how he says it and why), yes, but also the substance (what he actually says).
Moving on, an opinion like "gun control is bad" is not immune to questioning because it is not a matter of taste. Liking guns may lie at the heart of the opinion, just as a dislike of them may underlie arguments for gun control. If it were about liking guns, there would be nothing more to talk about (like chocolate vs vanilla ice cream). But there IS more to talk about, because being for or against gun control involves loads of other aspects and opinions are built on "facts," many of which may not be true. Getting to these is what a discussion is about. One person may mean "banning guns" when they think gun control, the other may not. Some may be encouraged by statistics that show crime rates falling when bans on carrying handguns are removed (this does happen), while others are more concerned about the increased likelihood of accidents in the home. Still others may conclude that, since America will never be mostly gun free like Britain due to its constitution, it is unclear how most gun control measures, which would in effect restrict gun ownership by law abiding citizens rather than criminals, would really help. NONE of these issues is an opinion. If the two people in a discussion are on the same page with all of these but still have opposing viewpoints, THAT is an opinion, and that may be the end of the story. You may have to agree to disagree because you place value on different things (a matter of preference). In most cases, all the facts are not apparent to all people (or even most of them). Discussion is necessary to bring these to the forefront.
It is possible to question someone's views while still "respecting" them. If I come to the conclusion that fewer guns would reduce deaths and that would be good, while the other person concludes that crooks have guns and she wants to be able to protect herself, while we both know the same information, then it has become a matter of taste and no further discussion is necessary (in an idealized democracy of well-informed citizens, this is where voting would settle the matter).
We do not have to "respect" a person's opinion if it involves disliking black people, or gays, or thinking women should "know their place." You are entitled to that opinion in the sense that no one can stop you from having it and no legal action can be taken against you for having or expressing it unless it manifests itself physically (liking firing a black employee, beating your wife, or inciting violence), but that doesn't mean you have a right for everyone to "respect" your opinion by not questioning it. In the end, all opinions, ideas, and beliefs are up for debate. Conducting that debate in a respectful manner is the most useful way, in my opinion (being confrontational is unlikely to get the other person to listen and just isn't, well, nice), but debating itself is never disrespectful unless it is truly a matter of taste. Obviously, though, chocolate and vanilla ice cream together is best.
Since my readers are mostly liberal, I'll start of with an example in which a liberal shut down a discussion because he viewed it as offensive. There was an article about "new germ theory." The author argued that many diseases we believe are genetic cannot possibly be so because anything that reduces the likelihood that you will reproduce even by 1% will be eliminated from the gene pool within x (I don't remember the number) generations. He thus argued that diseases like MS, heart disease, and many cancers were caused by viruses. (By the way, he did present actual evidence of this, too, so there's something to the line of reasoning). Whether he is right is beside the point, for the crucial part came toward the end, when he mentioned that homosexuality ought to reduce the likelihood of reproduction and therefore ought not to exist. The fact that he does, he reasoned, suggested that it came from somewhere else, perhaps some sort of infection.
The person I mentioned commented in class that he found the article interesting up until that point, but then he stopped reading. He has many gay friends, he said, and this sort of bigoted talk was simply unacceptable. Stepping through the looking glass into bizarroworld, I, the gay man, spoke up to defend the author. Why? His idea was uncomfortable, to be sure. Gays have long fought not to be seen as "sick," and here was a guy trying to throw this back at them again. But the fact that I do not like where this is going does not mean that any such sort of line of investigation should be halted. There was no suggestion that the author was using this to, say, deprive gays of their rights or lower their status. He was a rebel in the world of disease research and was thus also asking a politically incorrect, but valid, question, "Why is there homosexuality?" while attempting to rule out certain reasons and put forth a more likely explanation, as he saw it. He is not (necessarily) a homophobe for asking any more than someone asking why blacks in America earn less than other racial groups is (necessarily) racist. It's the context (how he says it and why), yes, but also the substance (what he actually says).
Moving on, an opinion like "gun control is bad" is not immune to questioning because it is not a matter of taste. Liking guns may lie at the heart of the opinion, just as a dislike of them may underlie arguments for gun control. If it were about liking guns, there would be nothing more to talk about (like chocolate vs vanilla ice cream). But there IS more to talk about, because being for or against gun control involves loads of other aspects and opinions are built on "facts," many of which may not be true. Getting to these is what a discussion is about. One person may mean "banning guns" when they think gun control, the other may not. Some may be encouraged by statistics that show crime rates falling when bans on carrying handguns are removed (this does happen), while others are more concerned about the increased likelihood of accidents in the home. Still others may conclude that, since America will never be mostly gun free like Britain due to its constitution, it is unclear how most gun control measures, which would in effect restrict gun ownership by law abiding citizens rather than criminals, would really help. NONE of these issues is an opinion. If the two people in a discussion are on the same page with all of these but still have opposing viewpoints, THAT is an opinion, and that may be the end of the story. You may have to agree to disagree because you place value on different things (a matter of preference). In most cases, all the facts are not apparent to all people (or even most of them). Discussion is necessary to bring these to the forefront.
It is possible to question someone's views while still "respecting" them. If I come to the conclusion that fewer guns would reduce deaths and that would be good, while the other person concludes that crooks have guns and she wants to be able to protect herself, while we both know the same information, then it has become a matter of taste and no further discussion is necessary (in an idealized democracy of well-informed citizens, this is where voting would settle the matter).
We do not have to "respect" a person's opinion if it involves disliking black people, or gays, or thinking women should "know their place." You are entitled to that opinion in the sense that no one can stop you from having it and no legal action can be taken against you for having or expressing it unless it manifests itself physically (liking firing a black employee, beating your wife, or inciting violence), but that doesn't mean you have a right for everyone to "respect" your opinion by not questioning it. In the end, all opinions, ideas, and beliefs are up for debate. Conducting that debate in a respectful manner is the most useful way, in my opinion (being confrontational is unlikely to get the other person to listen and just isn't, well, nice), but debating itself is never disrespectful unless it is truly a matter of taste. Obviously, though, chocolate and vanilla ice cream together is best.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Why Should Polygamy Be Illegal?
Anti-gay rights activists often ground their argument against gay marriage using the "slippery slope" analogy: If we allow this, soon we'll have to allow polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality. This, of course, is silly (and gravely insulting). We don't "have" to do anything. Slippery slopes do exist, so the analogy is not always a red herring, but in this case it's a bit like arguing that we shouldn't allow women to vote because soon children, prison inmates, and farm animals will want the vote as well. Besides, the fundamental line of separation here is mercifully clear and uncontroversial: it's consent--at least for most of the cases. Children are not capable of consenting to sexual acts they (and their bodies) do not understand. Sex with children will thus always be unacceptable and a crime (all arguments about the age at which a person is mature enough to consent aside). Animals have no way of expressing consent and, at the risk of stating the obvious, there is little reason to think they would give it if they could! That leaves polygamy.
Polygamy (which includes polygyny and polyandry) is not socially acceptable in most places in "Western" countries. Even the Mormons no longer allow it. If we follow the consent principle, though, it is hard to find solid arguments for outlawing it. Let me make one thing clear right here: no good arguments for disallowing something does not equal good arguments for engaging in something. I'm not promoting polygamy (or even polyamory) here. What I am promoting is people's choice to be polygamous if they and their partners wish. It's about freedom and consent.
"Polygyny is degrading to women." I'll admit on an emotional level it sure seems odd to share one man among several women. In the end, though, this comes down to claiming to know what's good for others better than they know it themselves. This is always tricky. We do accept such paternalism as the norm in some cases, however. Seatbelt laws are just one example. The reason we have them is because they save lives because we are all apparently too shortsighted to save our lives without laws mandating that we do so! So do people always make the best choices for themselves? Obviously not. But the harm in polygamy is not clear, or at least not clear enough to make it criminal. It seems to me your family and friends (if anyone) should be the ones telling you not to do it, not the state. Besides, we're talking about polygamy as a whole here. Is polyandry degrading to men? Are men considered equally incapable of judging what is good for them? If not, then the whole argument about banning polygamy because it is degrading to women centers on women being incapable of thinking for themselves. Who's degrading women now?
This reminds me a bit (tangentially) of calls to ban Islamic face coverings and head scarves. Some also consider these to be degrading to women. Once again, though: How do we pick out those who are pressured into wearing them by their husbands and fathers and those who choose to do so out of a personal sense of piety? (I have known some women in the latter group.) This topic is less controversial in the US, with its strict tradition of freedom of religion and religious expression, than in Europe. But as one woman in an English class I taught in Austria pointed out (she was the only one in the class against banning face coverings): "Prohibiting women from covering their faces is just as bad as forcing them to cover them. No matter what, they are not free to choose."
So bans on polygamy are based in religious tradition and paternalism and are thus overly restrictive of individual freedoms in my book (you all know I'm a social--but not economic--libertarian). Thoughts?
Polygamy (which includes polygyny and polyandry) is not socially acceptable in most places in "Western" countries. Even the Mormons no longer allow it. If we follow the consent principle, though, it is hard to find solid arguments for outlawing it. Let me make one thing clear right here: no good arguments for disallowing something does not equal good arguments for engaging in something. I'm not promoting polygamy (or even polyamory) here. What I am promoting is people's choice to be polygamous if they and their partners wish. It's about freedom and consent.
"Polygyny is degrading to women." I'll admit on an emotional level it sure seems odd to share one man among several women. In the end, though, this comes down to claiming to know what's good for others better than they know it themselves. This is always tricky. We do accept such paternalism as the norm in some cases, however. Seatbelt laws are just one example. The reason we have them is because they save lives because we are all apparently too shortsighted to save our lives without laws mandating that we do so! So do people always make the best choices for themselves? Obviously not. But the harm in polygamy is not clear, or at least not clear enough to make it criminal. It seems to me your family and friends (if anyone) should be the ones telling you not to do it, not the state. Besides, we're talking about polygamy as a whole here. Is polyandry degrading to men? Are men considered equally incapable of judging what is good for them? If not, then the whole argument about banning polygamy because it is degrading to women centers on women being incapable of thinking for themselves. Who's degrading women now?
This reminds me a bit (tangentially) of calls to ban Islamic face coverings and head scarves. Some also consider these to be degrading to women. Once again, though: How do we pick out those who are pressured into wearing them by their husbands and fathers and those who choose to do so out of a personal sense of piety? (I have known some women in the latter group.) This topic is less controversial in the US, with its strict tradition of freedom of religion and religious expression, than in Europe. But as one woman in an English class I taught in Austria pointed out (she was the only one in the class against banning face coverings): "Prohibiting women from covering their faces is just as bad as forcing them to cover them. No matter what, they are not free to choose."
So bans on polygamy are based in religious tradition and paternalism and are thus overly restrictive of individual freedoms in my book (you all know I'm a social--but not economic--libertarian). Thoughts?
Sunday, June 21, 2009
The Justice Department and Gay Marriage
If you know me, you would probably never expect me to speak out defending the federal government when it defends itself for discriminating against gays and lesbians, but that's what I'm about to do.
A recent article in the Advocate, a GLBT news magazine criticizes the Justice Department for defending the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), which defines marriage on the federal level as between a man and a woman. Gay rights activists see this as betrayal. This is overly dramatic, but may just be a good rhetorical tool for calling attention to inequality. Although I would consider myself to be a gay rights activist, too, and I also vehemently oppose the DOMA for some very personal reasons (it's blocking my boyfriend and myself from being able to move to the States, as he can't get a green card for the States yet), this is not really a betrayal.
Activists point out that Obama claimed to be against the DOMA. But this position is reiterated in the brief from the Justice Department. However, whatever Obama would like, it is up to Congress to change the law by passing a bill, which he would then presumably sign into law, overturning the DOMA. In the meantime, it is only natural that the Justice Department would defend the DOMA: that's its job. It's part of the executive, which means it is charged with enforcing laws, not interpreting them or deciding if they are fair or constitutional (that would be the courts' job) or deciding if they should be replaced by other laws or changed in some way (that's the job of the legislature, in this case Congress). Furthermore, it is right that there is currently no federal legal precedent that would in any way suggest that the DOMA is unconstitutional (unfortunately). It is possible that the Supreme Court would simply decide otherwise, but it is unlikely to even hear the case, choosing to leave the can of worms closed. Again, this is a legislative issue, not an executive or even judicial one.
That said, if this is a rhetorical weapon, it may just work. I think Obama will now know we're watching. More importantly: Congress will know this, too. They are the ones that must make the first move. The move would be very controversial, and tantamount to allowing gay marriage throughout the 50 states. Though they would not all have to allow same-sex marriages to be performed in their own states, federal recognition would mean they would all have to recognize marriages performed elsewhere. There are many constituents in conservative states, even ones who vote democratic, who would not be happy about this. It would be a risky move. It is therefore unsurprising that Congress is taking its time.
In the end, of course, I hope they find the courage to do the right thing and get rid of the DOMA, but it's going to be a BIG deal if they do. In the meantime, neither the Department of Justice nor Obama himself have proved themselves to be traitors. If you want to bark up the right tree, call your state senators and representatives and tell them to get on it!
A recent article in the Advocate, a GLBT news magazine criticizes the Justice Department for defending the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), which defines marriage on the federal level as between a man and a woman. Gay rights activists see this as betrayal. This is overly dramatic, but may just be a good rhetorical tool for calling attention to inequality. Although I would consider myself to be a gay rights activist, too, and I also vehemently oppose the DOMA for some very personal reasons (it's blocking my boyfriend and myself from being able to move to the States, as he can't get a green card for the States yet), this is not really a betrayal.
Activists point out that Obama claimed to be against the DOMA. But this position is reiterated in the brief from the Justice Department. However, whatever Obama would like, it is up to Congress to change the law by passing a bill, which he would then presumably sign into law, overturning the DOMA. In the meantime, it is only natural that the Justice Department would defend the DOMA: that's its job. It's part of the executive, which means it is charged with enforcing laws, not interpreting them or deciding if they are fair or constitutional (that would be the courts' job) or deciding if they should be replaced by other laws or changed in some way (that's the job of the legislature, in this case Congress). Furthermore, it is right that there is currently no federal legal precedent that would in any way suggest that the DOMA is unconstitutional (unfortunately). It is possible that the Supreme Court would simply decide otherwise, but it is unlikely to even hear the case, choosing to leave the can of worms closed. Again, this is a legislative issue, not an executive or even judicial one.
That said, if this is a rhetorical weapon, it may just work. I think Obama will now know we're watching. More importantly: Congress will know this, too. They are the ones that must make the first move. The move would be very controversial, and tantamount to allowing gay marriage throughout the 50 states. Though they would not all have to allow same-sex marriages to be performed in their own states, federal recognition would mean they would all have to recognize marriages performed elsewhere. There are many constituents in conservative states, even ones who vote democratic, who would not be happy about this. It would be a risky move. It is therefore unsurprising that Congress is taking its time.
In the end, of course, I hope they find the courage to do the right thing and get rid of the DOMA, but it's going to be a BIG deal if they do. In the meantime, neither the Department of Justice nor Obama himself have proved themselves to be traitors. If you want to bark up the right tree, call your state senators and representatives and tell them to get on it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)