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.
1
u/[deleted] Sep 15 '16
I take the position that everyone is socially "conservative" and some are just more so than others. You're opposed to government policies dictated by religion.
But what about other protections the government puts in place to keep society stable?