Re: Bible Ban in Utah Schools
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2023 11:04 am
Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
No problem. I felt much the same way.Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:40 pmThanks for linking to that piece. It puts a structure around thoughts I've had over the years but have never been able to pull together in a coherent whole. Definitely worth reading and thinking about.honorentheos wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 6:59 pmDavid Brooks wrote an interesting piece for The Atlantic regarding liberalism taken to an extreme on both poles of the American political spectrum where "classic liberal" and "progressive liberal" may be applied to folks on the right and left, respectively. Seems like it has some bearing here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... id/673790/
<snip>
I like the approach, but it’s hard for me to generalize it. Before I read Brooks’ piece, I would have described the two views as Liberalism and hyper-individualism does not. I would have described the difference between the two as linking rights with responsibilities. Liberalism recognizes a link, as illustrated by the reference to On Liberty. Hyper-individualism does not.malkie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 11:10 pmThe author of the article dissects assisted suicide through the opposing lenses of gifts-based liberalism and autonomy-based liberalism, and to me comes down very clearly and strongly on the gifts-based side.
I lack the intellect and the energy to apply a similar analysis to other societal issues, but I suspect that David Brooks might likewise see a better argument for forcing an unwilling woman to give birth than for permitting her to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy.
I'd be happy to read the thoughts of other board members on the application of the dueling liberalisms to abortion rights, and other issues such as the death penalty, helping the less fortunate in society, etc.
Anyone up for it?
Thanks, Res.Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:13 pmI like the approach, but it’s hard for me to generalize it. Before I read Brooks’ piece, I would have described the two views as Liberalism and hyper-individualism does not. I would have described the difference between the two as linking rights with responsibilities. Liberalism recognizes a link, as illustrated by the reference to On Liberty. Hyper-individualism does not.malkie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 11:10 pmThe author of the article dissects assisted suicide through the opposing lenses of gifts-based liberalism and autonomy-based liberalism, and to me comes down very clearly and strongly on the gifts-based side.
I lack the intellect and the energy to apply a similar analysis to other societal issues, but I suspect that David Brooks might likewise see a better argument for forcing an unwilling woman to give birth than for permitting her to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy.
I'd be happy to read the thoughts of other board members on the application of the dueling liberalisms to abortion rights, and other issues such as the death penalty, helping the less fortunate in society, etc.
Anyone up for it?
Brooks makes that idea sounds more attractive by grounding ties to others in gratitude rather than duty. One doesn’t take into account the effect of one’s actions because they have to — they do so because they want to.
Churlish post-modernist that I am, I tend to think of the issue in terms of irreconcilable conflict between individual and group identities. We both want our individuality to be protected from groups and want groups to protect us from other individuals (and groups). We want the ability to decide how to live happy, fulfilling lives without interference by others and have the ability to live happy, fulfilling lives through community.
Brooks’ approach is much more satisfying than mine.