Masterful job clearly gently explaining how best to live peacefully with others, despite seemingly insoluble disagreements about reality, Helen! Whenever I read or listen to something of yours, I get downright evangelical-like and want to spread it to others.
Interesting Helen…. I had never considered the responsibility that may be felt by some Christians that comes from wanting to ‘save’ those they see on the wrong path (eg Homosexuality..)… like the blind person near a cliff…
In the very early stages. "Reformers, Revolutionaries and Reactionaries: Has Liberalism Failed or Are We Failing to Be Liberal."
This book will argue for an understanding of liberalism which is not opposed to conservatism but to authoritarianism and so includes most conservatives. (This is generally understood in the UK, but less so in the US). It describes common concepts of liberalism and divides them into two.
1) Dispositional liberalism: Somebody who is, by nature, individualistic and freedom-orientated and has this at the centre of their morality. Things are morally acceptable or not depending on whether they are freely chosen by someone exercising their individual liberty in a way that does not infringe upon anybody else's individual liberty. This overlaps with consequentialist ethics. It is not convincing as a foundation for morality to people who are dispositionally conservative and centre their morality more about family, community, duty and virtue ethics. (Dispositional liberals also have commitments to families & communities and a sense of duty and virtues, but the important thing, for them, is that these are freely chosen. e.g., a dispositional conservative may feel that it is a moral duty to marry someone of the opposite sex with whom they will have children and respect their community or country's religious and cultural traditions and customs while a dispositional liberal may well do all of those things, but also think it would be fine to have relationships with people of the opposite sex, choose not to have children and maybe not to adhere to any faith tradition and to critique aspects of one's own culture)
2) Principled defender of liberal democracy - Somebody who accepts and upholds an overarching principle that we should allow people to believe, speak and live as we see fit provided this harms no-one else or denies them the right to do the same. They could frame this, in the US, as a commitment to the position that all people are created equal and have the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But acceptance of this as a consensus that all should uphold does not have to be at the centre of their moral compass. They may live their own lives guided very much by their religious faith or conservative values or radical values and have a strong ethical framework based on specific beliefs and values. They just also accept that it would be wrong to try to impose these on everybody else and limit their disapproval of the (non-harmful) ways other people choose to live their lives and the beliefs they hold to verbal arguments against it, expressing social disapproval in non-punitive ways and choosing not to be friends with those whose values they cannot respect.
I wish to persuade those of a more conservative or religious or radical disposition that when I am asking them to commit to the 'live and let live' principle underlying a liberal democracy, I am not asking them to become dispositional liberals or moral relativists (not the same thing). I am not asking them to sacrifice any of their own values or accept beliefs, values or (non-harmful) lifestyles they believe to be morally wrong to be morally right, but simply to allow them to exist unless they are causing material harm to others. (There must be a high bar on what constitutes material harm which cannot include ideas considered subversive or hurtful like ""woman" is a biological sex category"" or "God does not exist") That is, I am not asking them to compromise but to co-exist. I would like the more radically progressive minded to see liberal democracies as something that has enabled social progress and can continue to do so and the more socially conservative minded to see supporting the principles of liberal democracies as patriotic and central to the aim of conserving Western Civilisation.
Masterful job clearly gently explaining how best to live peacefully with others, despite seemingly insoluble disagreements about reality, Helen! Whenever I read or listen to something of yours, I get downright evangelical-like and want to spread it to others.
Interesting Helen…. I had never considered the responsibility that may be felt by some Christians that comes from wanting to ‘save’ those they see on the wrong path (eg Homosexuality..)… like the blind person near a cliff…
Next book??
In the very early stages. "Reformers, Revolutionaries and Reactionaries: Has Liberalism Failed or Are We Failing to Be Liberal."
This book will argue for an understanding of liberalism which is not opposed to conservatism but to authoritarianism and so includes most conservatives. (This is generally understood in the UK, but less so in the US). It describes common concepts of liberalism and divides them into two.
1) Dispositional liberalism: Somebody who is, by nature, individualistic and freedom-orientated and has this at the centre of their morality. Things are morally acceptable or not depending on whether they are freely chosen by someone exercising their individual liberty in a way that does not infringe upon anybody else's individual liberty. This overlaps with consequentialist ethics. It is not convincing as a foundation for morality to people who are dispositionally conservative and centre their morality more about family, community, duty and virtue ethics. (Dispositional liberals also have commitments to families & communities and a sense of duty and virtues, but the important thing, for them, is that these are freely chosen. e.g., a dispositional conservative may feel that it is a moral duty to marry someone of the opposite sex with whom they will have children and respect their community or country's religious and cultural traditions and customs while a dispositional liberal may well do all of those things, but also think it would be fine to have relationships with people of the opposite sex, choose not to have children and maybe not to adhere to any faith tradition and to critique aspects of one's own culture)
2) Principled defender of liberal democracy - Somebody who accepts and upholds an overarching principle that we should allow people to believe, speak and live as we see fit provided this harms no-one else or denies them the right to do the same. They could frame this, in the US, as a commitment to the position that all people are created equal and have the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But acceptance of this as a consensus that all should uphold does not have to be at the centre of their moral compass. They may live their own lives guided very much by their religious faith or conservative values or radical values and have a strong ethical framework based on specific beliefs and values. They just also accept that it would be wrong to try to impose these on everybody else and limit their disapproval of the (non-harmful) ways other people choose to live their lives and the beliefs they hold to verbal arguments against it, expressing social disapproval in non-punitive ways and choosing not to be friends with those whose values they cannot respect.
I wish to persuade those of a more conservative or religious or radical disposition that when I am asking them to commit to the 'live and let live' principle underlying a liberal democracy, I am not asking them to become dispositional liberals or moral relativists (not the same thing). I am not asking them to sacrifice any of their own values or accept beliefs, values or (non-harmful) lifestyles they believe to be morally wrong to be morally right, but simply to allow them to exist unless they are causing material harm to others. (There must be a high bar on what constitutes material harm which cannot include ideas considered subversive or hurtful like ""woman" is a biological sex category"" or "God does not exist") That is, I am not asking them to compromise but to co-exist. I would like the more radically progressive minded to see liberal democracies as something that has enabled social progress and can continue to do so and the more socially conservative minded to see supporting the principles of liberal democracies as patriotic and central to the aim of conserving Western Civilisation.
Very much looking forward to reading your soon-to-be book. :)