#moderate

My family credo: “Melius non potuit, potuit esse peius.”

I’m routinely called a liberal in my day to day and facebook life, which I’ve always found to be interesting. Not that I think being liberal is bad, or being called a liberal is something I consider insulting (even though it is often used as an insult).

To start: I don’t consider myself a liberal, a conservative, or even really a moderate.  

In day to day conversation, I call myself a moderate simply because I’m lazy and don’t feel like explaining my position to everyone I meet. Fortunately for you, I feel like ranting about something positive.

“Rob, if you aren’t a liberal, moderate, or conservative - what are you!?” - Internet Reader

Simple: I’m an evidentialist (otherwise known as a skeptic).

That means when someone makes a claim to me, I judge the likelihood if that claim is true, how strong the claim is, and if it’s an important claim - I demand evidence with sufficient strength to support it. I then will adopt that claim if - and only if - the evidence supports it. 

Why do I put the condition “if it’s an important claim” on there? Because I’m lazy. If you tell me your favorite color is orange, that the Cardinals are the worst/best football/baseball team in the universe, or why musician X is better than Y - I’ll simply accept your opinion as such because I have no other reason to believe otherwise.

This is of course why I’m an atheist - because making a claim like “This is how the universe was created, the eternal consequence of a particular action, the desires of some diety, and why you should worship it” is a vastly important and strong claim. And since you (yeah you) don’t have ANY evidence at all to support your claim, I believe you exactly accordingly (not at all). 

That said, why am I always called a liberal? Why do I always seem left of conservative land?

Lets start with the very fundamental aspect of my moral code: Through my own experience, I know that generally speaking happiness is preferable to suffering. I can easily extend that to all human beings certainly, and to many living animals.

(Please note: I had a 3 hour jujitsu class before posting this - these thoughts are on a whim and may be incomplete. Please don’t try to use this to trap me into a moral paradox - this is an internet post, not a doctoral thesis defense. )

Thus, when forming a position, I use the rubric “Does this thing generally make people happier or does it make them suffer more? How sure am I?”

For example: Being sick makes people suffer. Being educated (some would say only to a certain extent) allows them to be happier. Being impoverished or desperate makes them suffer. Having enough food to be healthy makes them happy. Starvation makes them suffer. 

We can build on those ideas to form pretty complex positions: We should build nuclear reactors, since electricity allows modern life, nuclear plants generate a nearly inexhaustible supply, and modern reactors are far safer than their predecessors. 

Of course I can’t go through life not causing anyone any suffering, and only causing happiness. But I can try. For more information and a more thorough explanation, check out  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism 

So I’m a liberal, eh? It’s simply because in general, liberal positions tend to not only have better evidence supporting them (so I’m more likely to incorporate them) and in general they cause more happiness than suffering. 

For example - allowing gays to marry causes *no suffering to anyone* and lots of happiness to many people. Additionally, the less discrimination and oppression in society, the less likely it is to be tolerated against other groups. It’s important to note that I don’t consider being offended a form of suffering. If you are offended by the idea of gay lives, gay marriage, gay sex, I really could not be more indifferent to your ‘plight’. Even better yet, there’s no evidence to back up the conservative position that homosexuality in any way degrades society. And even if their WERE evidence to suggest that, it would have to be such that more suffering was caused by gay marriage than happiness is allowed by supporting it. 



Similarly, the evidence is very clear on the problems caused by wealth inequality. On inadequate access to medical care. On poor education. Nearly all of our societal problems can be solved by education and health care. Crime. Abortion. Teen Pregnancy. Poverty - all those things have been repeatedly shown to go down as education and health care improve. So, we as a society have to figure out the best way to pay for those things. We see examples around the world of better systems for education and health care than our own. The evidence is clear - free education and health care is far better for society everyone. And you pay for that with? Taxes. 


So, I’m with liberals there. Giving everyone a substantial and good education would cause an immense amount of happiness. It would also REDUCE suffering by lowering crime rates, by encouraging healthier behavior, etc. But what suffering would it cause? Well we’d need to raise taxes. But the evidence ALSO shows that raising taxes on those who are already maintaining a comfortable living doesn’t cause any suffering (other than being offended by society coercing them into participating in the health and security of others). 

For example, would Romney *suffer* if he only brought in 18 million last year instead of 24 million? Would he *suffer* if he only brought in 2 million? Doubtful. (I’m not calling for a 90% tax on Romney. I’m just using that as a point. )

I’m for clean environments because a devastated and unusable environment will cause suffering for eons. I’m for tight financial regulations because of the vast harm that financial crises cause. I’m against many forms of gun control, because removing guns from law abiding gun owners does not reduce gun crime (suffering), and the increased vulnerability to crime causes suffering.

I’m not for “entitlement programs” - I’m for an educated and healthy population. If the data shows that privatizing an industry will result in more happiness and less suffering? I’m all for it.  I’m against abortion prohibition because it causes lots of suffering and causes no happiness (since we know that it doesn’t actually prevent abortions, you aren’t allowing little babies to be happy). It’s also important to note that I support a strong military (and the technology it develops) because countries that don’t have a strong military can’t influence other nations (which sometimes we might need to do) and can be invaded (which causes lots of suffering). 

But I don’t listen to rhetoric, anecdotes, appeals to authority, appeals to ridicule, appeals to popularity, or any other such nonsense. I listen to evidence. 

So, you can call me liberal if you want. Conservatives? Find more data to support your positions. Then we’ll talk. If you’d like me to clarify any topics, feel free to ask!

 

Today’s best political cartoons