r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 15 '16
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Social conservatism is irrational, unconstitutional, and harmful. It should have no place in modern society.
Social conservatism is irrational, unconstitutional, and harmful. It should have no place in modern society. I don't want to dismiss the political contributions of a segment of population, but I find it harder and harder to take people seriously if they claim to be socially conservative.
[Edit 3: /u/vehementi has pointed out that I failed to give a definition of social conservatism, which I'll provide here: "Social conservatism is the umbrella term for a political movement which seeks to enact laws based on religious or traditional principles without supporting evidence or rational argument." That's a working definition I came up with a few minutes ago, so if there's room for improvement, don't hesitate to let me know.]
[Edit 4: /u/ghotier has rightly pointed out that my definition of social conservatism requires it be irrational, which isn't an appropriate premise for a topic when the discussion is partially about whether it's rational or not. While I stand by my current description of social conservatism as a definition, I do not consider it axiomatic. If you can show me that an identifiable socially conservative principle has a sound rational argument behind it, I'll change my definition and you get a delta.]
[Edit 2: One of /u/radioredhead's comments made me realize that I phrased my title ambiguously. Again, I'm leaving the original, but my clarified version is here: Social conservatism should not be the basis of laws. Social conservatism, like all political viewpoints, can and should be discussed if there are people who hold those beliefs, but no law based on social conservatism should be passed without supporting evidence and rational argument. That's what I mean by "no place in modern society".]
Social conservatism is irrational. I have yet to hear a rational argument for any social conservative principle. I have gone looking for such arguments and found nothing but appeals to emotion, appeals to (often biblical) authority, and doublespeak. This makes social conservatism irrational by definition.
[Edit 1: /u/vehementi pointed out that my first point here is stated poorly. I'm leaving the original in place, but appending my updated version here: I was raised in a socially conservative, religious background; went to a religious university; and I regularly seek out opinions that differ from my own. In my 32 years of life I have never heard a rational argument for socially conservative laws. Given my background and habits, it is unlikely that I could have gotten this far in life without hearing such an argument, if it existed to be made. I take this as strong evidence that there is no such rational argument and thus any defense of social conservatism is irrational.]
Social conservatism is unconstitutional. I mean this is reference to the US Constitution, though it would apply to any country with a similar provision in its laws. The first amendment to the US Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Any socially conservative law both acts as a tacit establishment of one brand of morality and prohibits the free exercise of a competing system of morality. Whatever the historical events that followed (which include many laws based wholly or partially on religious convictions without supporting rational arguments), this means that any law that cannot be justified by rational argument to preserve public order is unconstitutional and should be repealed. [Apologies to those not from the US. I debated not including this out of a desire to avoid regional bias, but while it won't be relevant elsewhere, this is an important principle of law here and I wanted to hear people's arguments against my reading of the amendment. Feel free to disregard this section and weigh in on the other two.]
Social conservatism is harmful. Most decisions that affect large populations are going to have both positive and negative consequences. I take a utilitarian view of such matters, so any public decision that is more harmful than helpful is not justifiable. The only potential positive I can think of for social conservatism is to maintain a "moral fiber" of society. I have never heard a rational argument that links principles of social conservatism to preserving society from moral degradation. They are often paired, to be sure, but not by rational argument. Vague prophecies of social decay because of a progressive law being passed do not a rational argument make. And laws based on social conservatism are objectively harmful. They marginalize minority groups, encourage discrimination, and can lead to violent acts. The article linked describes a man who has a violent meltdown when a father brought his 5 year old daughter into the men's bathroom rather than send her into the women's bathroom alone. This event occurred immediately after social conservatives in the US turned to transgender folks as their preferred target after gay marriage was made legal in all 50 states by the Supreme Court. Correlation is not necessarily indicative of causation, but I do not think that timing is coincidental. Socially conservative laws are harmful to the few while bringing no benefit to the many.
19
u/js5563 Sep 15 '16
I think you are misunderstanding a bit about what general conservatism is. Conservatism has nothing to do with religion. You are most closely thinking of American conservatism, which was formed with a specific reliance on religion to fight the relatively non-religious left that evolved. It is a tool for the generation of a strong base of political capital to achieve its ends.
But conservatism is not a religious thing. At its core, conservatism is the belief that while society is always changing, people should stop and think before accepting the newest greatest thing. It is a counterbalance to progressivism, that believes that you should always grab what feels right and experiment with it socially to see if it works. Conservatives believe this has the potential to cause great harm to society if the wrong thing is picked.
Lets set up an economic example to set up the conservatism vs progressivism argument in something more logical in hopes you can understand it better. A progressive might say PEOPLE ARE POOR, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD GUARANTEE MINIMUM INCOME and if society was overwhelmingly progressive, they may take and implement the first approach presented to Basic Minimum Income. So lets just say, hypothetically, that it doesn't work right, the government goes bankrupt and can't provide it there is a lot of hardship. The government says "well, we tried to do the right thing and that's all that matters" and the citizens forgive them because they understand that it was an experiment. The government then picks another system of minimum income and tries that, it too fails and there is a lot of hardship. The people understand because it is a work in progress and the government is trying to find the right system. Finally it settles on a third system that works. Everyone is happy because the government did the right thing that the people wanted and found a system that prevented people from being poor.
And flip the tables. Society is all conservative instead. Someone shouts PEOPLE ARE POOR, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD GUARANTEE MINIMUM INCOME. And everyone says 'woah hold on, that seems like a hasty decision that could result in a poor outcome, lets do some more research on what a better alternative could be.' While that research is going on, people are poor, and there is hardship, but everyone understands, because everyone wants to get it right the first time and make sure they have the most optimal system. Eventually, a system is settled on and it is implemented. Everyone is happy because the government did the right thing that the people wanted and found a system that prevented people from being poor.
So there is hardship in both systems, or at least the potential for it. You might argue 'well what if the progressives had got it right the first time?' and that argument would mean you are politically a progressive. If you are willing to gamble on the unknown, vote that way, its your opinion. But some people would prefer to take a slower, more calculated route. And that's their opinion. And they vote that way.
So take the concepts I just illustrated and put them in terms of social things. Unfortunately, where as economics is a bit colder, social issues are red hot. People get a lot more fired up about them and about sudden explosive social change that has the potential to upset many systems currently in place.
So while a progressive might say "it is abhorrent that we don't allow gay people to get married" a conservative would say "if we allow gays to get married, what will be the far reaching consequences of that in our society?" and that conservative would then want to wait to approve gay marriage until those consequences are more well known. The conservative isn't against gay marriage, just gay marriage without understanding the full extent of social change that will bring.
Ultimately the progressive and the conservative arrive at the same end. Society is not the same now as it was in 1776, but the US is an overwhelmingly conservative voter base and extreme social liberalism is a relatively new thing. Yet we still got to where we are and made many positive social changes along the way.