Just as a personal matter, I love reading smart, understated humor like this: "We understand the claim 'public roads should be properly maintained' to be a position on how our authorities should spend taxpayers’ money, not a commitment to a personal project." But on the larger issue before us, I wouldn't have thought to address it, as Helen does, as a matter of the scale and complexity of modern societies (containing the many issues about which we may care) and the "strategic confusion" we might be tempted to deploy to misunderstand those who disagree with us. As I type this, it also occurs to me that those of us who disagree with capital punishment probably shouldn't challenge our fellow American citizens who support the death penalty to carry it out themselves.
While I think the "Why don't you have a homeless " is silly, falling back entirely on "It's a complex society, I don't fix the roads either " misses the point too. That is, I think it's reasonable to ask someone what costs they'd be willing to bear for their proposed solution. For example, if someone thinks no one should be homeless, it would be reasonable to ask them if they've volunteered or donated to the local homeless shelter. If they have, then it indicates that they actually do care a lot about the issue. If they haven't, and in fact they got the zoning board to prevent a shelter from moving into their neighborhood, I'm gonna say they don't care, they just like the social benefits of appearing to care.
And if they’ve opposed abortion that they have actually volunteered or donated to charities that support kids in care? And if they care about locking up criminals, that they’ve become dedicated time or money to supporting programmes to protect victims of violent crime? And if they want stronger immigration policies that they’ve offered their own time to patrol borders? There are a lot of important policies that people can support at the same time. I’ve supported Shelter in giving a young person a room and support Karma Nirvana addressing honour crime. I support secular humanist organisations and foodbanks and organisations that address loneliness in the elderly but there are still a lot of policies I support which I do not actively involve myself in. I don’t think testing people’s dedication to all of the policies they support by demanding evidence of engagement with some aspect of them in one’s personal life is a useful thing to do. I think expecting good and consistent arguments is better.
I think there's a level of support that matters. I think if support is "have an opinion " then everyone has those. If someone cares enough to say, write a long essay on Substack, I think that's a higher level of caring, so it's makes sense to ask a higher price from them. I do think that, yes, we should strive for good arguments first and foremost, but if the person's entire argument is essentially moral shaming ie declaring something a "human right" without any idea how it's paid for, it's a good counterarguement to push if they are willing to put any "skin in the game."
The spare-room argument has intuitive force because it exploits a legitimate moral instinct: we trust people more when they are willing to bear some cost for what they claim to believe. The whole actions speak louder than words thing. In a small community, where saying “something should be done” may amount to asking your neighbors to do it, personal action can be meaningful evidence of sincerity.
In a society of millions, it doesn’t work the same way. A person’s willingness to incur a private cost may tell us something about their sincerity, but almost nothing about whether the goal is moral or the policy will work. I think that is why this argument survives despite the category error. It answers whether I should trust the person and then pretends it has answered whether I should support the policy.
In a society of millions, it can also be easy to forget that someone does have to do something, with whatever risks that entails. Whether the war is just or not, someone's son or daughter may die fighting it, so we should keep that in mind. Your preferred policy is always implemented by real people, and we should remember that, they aren't just NPCs that are part of the game of life.
Yes, I agree with this. I certainly would never write an essay saying that we should endorse and vote for policies without giving any thought to the human cost involved if they are implemented. I think that should be at the forefront of anything anybody thinks should happen.
The most common variation on this from the right is a claim that people who are rich but who support greater economic equality are hypocrites who have no right to advocate for greater fairness until they have given away enough of their wealth to qualify as poor.
A Brit who declares that he supports closed borders and zero immigrants for his country, whilst advocating for the rights of other countries to allow immigration if they want it, and living in one of those "expat"-friendly countries, is entirely reasonable.
"Stressing the importance of vetting individuals for values compatible with those of a liberal democracy and the pre-existing culture" is something we do for ethical, moral, practical and crime prevention reasons
Sorry, anyone listening to the current woke left and expecting good faith dialogue is MASSIVELY AT FAULT. They are doing one of the most stupid things imaginable.
There is also a curious distinction between conservatives that believe charity and accommodation for the poor is a moral imperative to be solved by the charitable person own volition. In contrast to the the traditional left wing that has delegated such questions to the public sphere. It is mildly amusing that modern progressives mirror the moral postering of the christian right in this question.
Just as a personal matter, I love reading smart, understated humor like this: "We understand the claim 'public roads should be properly maintained' to be a position on how our authorities should spend taxpayers’ money, not a commitment to a personal project." But on the larger issue before us, I wouldn't have thought to address it, as Helen does, as a matter of the scale and complexity of modern societies (containing the many issues about which we may care) and the "strategic confusion" we might be tempted to deploy to misunderstand those who disagree with us. As I type this, it also occurs to me that those of us who disagree with capital punishment probably shouldn't challenge our fellow American citizens who support the death penalty to carry it out themselves.
While I think the "Why don't you have a homeless " is silly, falling back entirely on "It's a complex society, I don't fix the roads either " misses the point too. That is, I think it's reasonable to ask someone what costs they'd be willing to bear for their proposed solution. For example, if someone thinks no one should be homeless, it would be reasonable to ask them if they've volunteered or donated to the local homeless shelter. If they have, then it indicates that they actually do care a lot about the issue. If they haven't, and in fact they got the zoning board to prevent a shelter from moving into their neighborhood, I'm gonna say they don't care, they just like the social benefits of appearing to care.
And if they’ve opposed abortion that they have actually volunteered or donated to charities that support kids in care? And if they care about locking up criminals, that they’ve become dedicated time or money to supporting programmes to protect victims of violent crime? And if they want stronger immigration policies that they’ve offered their own time to patrol borders? There are a lot of important policies that people can support at the same time. I’ve supported Shelter in giving a young person a room and support Karma Nirvana addressing honour crime. I support secular humanist organisations and foodbanks and organisations that address loneliness in the elderly but there are still a lot of policies I support which I do not actively involve myself in. I don’t think testing people’s dedication to all of the policies they support by demanding evidence of engagement with some aspect of them in one’s personal life is a useful thing to do. I think expecting good and consistent arguments is better.
I think there's a level of support that matters. I think if support is "have an opinion " then everyone has those. If someone cares enough to say, write a long essay on Substack, I think that's a higher level of caring, so it's makes sense to ask a higher price from them. I do think that, yes, we should strive for good arguments first and foremost, but if the person's entire argument is essentially moral shaming ie declaring something a "human right" without any idea how it's paid for, it's a good counterarguement to push if they are willing to put any "skin in the game."
The spare-room argument has intuitive force because it exploits a legitimate moral instinct: we trust people more when they are willing to bear some cost for what they claim to believe. The whole actions speak louder than words thing. In a small community, where saying “something should be done” may amount to asking your neighbors to do it, personal action can be meaningful evidence of sincerity.
In a society of millions, it doesn’t work the same way. A person’s willingness to incur a private cost may tell us something about their sincerity, but almost nothing about whether the goal is moral or the policy will work. I think that is why this argument survives despite the category error. It answers whether I should trust the person and then pretends it has answered whether I should support the policy.
Indeed. I absolutely trust one of my friends who opposes abortion and assisted dying. I just think he is wrong.
In a society of millions, it can also be easy to forget that someone does have to do something, with whatever risks that entails. Whether the war is just or not, someone's son or daughter may die fighting it, so we should keep that in mind. Your preferred policy is always implemented by real people, and we should remember that, they aren't just NPCs that are part of the game of life.
Yes, I agree with this. I certainly would never write an essay saying that we should endorse and vote for policies without giving any thought to the human cost involved if they are implemented. I think that should be at the forefront of anything anybody thinks should happen.
100%.
The most common variation on this from the right is a claim that people who are rich but who support greater economic equality are hypocrites who have no right to advocate for greater fairness until they have given away enough of their wealth to qualify as poor.
A Brit who declares that he supports closed borders and zero immigrants for his country, whilst advocating for the rights of other countries to allow immigration if they want it, and living in one of those "expat"-friendly countries, is entirely reasonable.
"Stressing the importance of vetting individuals for values compatible with those of a liberal democracy and the pre-existing culture" is something we do for ethical, moral, practical and crime prevention reasons
Sorry, anyone listening to the current woke left and expecting good faith dialogue is MASSIVELY AT FAULT. They are doing one of the most stupid things imaginable.
There is also a curious distinction between conservatives that believe charity and accommodation for the poor is a moral imperative to be solved by the charitable person own volition. In contrast to the the traditional left wing that has delegated such questions to the public sphere. It is mildly amusing that modern progressives mirror the moral postering of the christian right in this question.