Nice illustration of the approach. "We shouldn’t criminalize the sexual behavior or preferences of consenting adults" opens this from salvo to conversation. It also helps us understand our own views better.
What if you really just want to express your outrage without opening room for dialog? Do you recommend always thinking through the declaration and then deciding which way to run?
It's an interesting question. Outrage can be so satisfying sometimes. I guess what's frustrating is outrage followed by concern about political polarization and the like (because it seems like a failure to acknowledge how the two are linked). I suppose outrage has its place—in a room full of like-minded people, we're more likely to be indignant (Can you believe xyz?!), but it's not going to lead us anywhere useful.
Personally, I always try to think through the declaration. Even when I'm just by myself and there's no interaction happening. I have never regretted trying to be clear in my thinking or understanding what my limits are.
Personally, just hoping to learn the declaration skill.
I have similar problems in "steel manning". I think it's a useful exercise, but I tend to be too black-and-white to do it well. Many steps on the path to jedi master. : )
1) We're assuming that "moral superiority" is even possible -- we're not moral relativists. I'm on board with that, but it is an assumption. And I suspect that most historical homophobia came from moral absolutists. That's not necessarily a good argument, but it's the sort that's often used ("<X> is bad because in the past group <Y> used <X> to oppress group <Z>")
2) I'll raise your "extreme case". What about prostitution (assuming an ideal world where there's no coercion)?
I'm not actually making a claim about whether moral superiority does or doesn't exist in any broader sense. Nor am I making a claim about moral relativism. (I address this misconception a little in #5 this post (https://thecertaintytrap.substack.com/p/ten-questions-about-the-certainty).) I'm making the much more mundane observation that people *feel* moral superiority.
Regarding your point 2, I'd like to give it thought, but I'm not sure I follow what the question is. What do you mean when you say "What about prostitution?"?
It seems that "I think all people should have equal rights under the law." is a rejection of moral relativism (vs. "In this culture, I think....."). I think "I am morally superior" means "I am closer to some absolute moral 'perfection'". (I can't claim "Papa Del's is superior to Dominoes" without believing in an absolute standard for judging pizza).
My real point was "People who claim moral superiority are acting as if they are moral absolutists". (which I find interesting)
Agreed, "we need to remain open to challenges", including those about moral relativism or absolutism.
The second part was just in response to your general rule about tolerating sex between consenting adults; I was curious if that tolerance extended to prostitution (again, assuming you could have consent).
I think I understand where the confusion is. Let me see if I can clarify. In this Uganda piece, for example, the statement that avoids the Certainty Trap *isn't* the assertion that "all people have equal rights under the law" (although that's an assertion I happen to agree with).
What avoids the Certainty Trap is (1) the clarity and precision in the principle I'm stating—in what's being violated for me when I object to the law. And (2) a willingness to have that principle examined, criticized, and questioned. But, importantly, I don't have to let it go.
That thinking applies to the prostitution example too. Avoiding the Certainty Trap is either about recognizing uncertainty *or* being precise and clear in the principle that's being violated when you hold your position (and recognizing that someone else could question it, given no idea, value, or principle is exempt from criticism or questioning).
Does that help? Ultimately, it's a philosophical and practical point with moral implications, but it's not fundamentally a moral argument.
I agree with your point about "remaining skeptical" being more of an epistemological issue than a moral one. And I completely agree that it's important to clearly state the assumptions/principles that you're working from.
I like the concept of the Certainty Trap.
Again, my comment was mainly about the moral implications of claiming moral superiority -- which isn't *necessarily* about how certain a person is about that claim.
I think that playing semantics with governmental polices that kill people is pretty academic and impotent. By that I mean, I think most people think that criminalising consensual sex is hateful and barbaric.
I find it much more important acknowledge the roots of anti-gay policies: religious bigotry. Kristof notes this in the NY Times about Ugandan anti-gay policy:
“American conservative Christian groups with records of fighting L.G.B.T.Q. rights have poured millions of dollars into African countries, according to a 2020 report. Some American evangelicals have been known to encourage anti-L.G.B.T.Q. legislation in countries such as Uganda. “
In the US we need to be thinking about why Christian fear gay people and criminalise anti-gay policies and actions
I hear you. But this isn't a semantic point. What's more, I could imagine an argument that says, it's precisely *because* the stakes are so high, that we can't afford to stand in moral superiority and condemn. It's an easy out.
Nice illustration of the approach. "We shouldn’t criminalize the sexual behavior or preferences of consenting adults" opens this from salvo to conversation. It also helps us understand our own views better.
What if you really just want to express your outrage without opening room for dialog? Do you recommend always thinking through the declaration and then deciding which way to run?
It's an interesting question. Outrage can be so satisfying sometimes. I guess what's frustrating is outrage followed by concern about political polarization and the like (because it seems like a failure to acknowledge how the two are linked). I suppose outrage has its place—in a room full of like-minded people, we're more likely to be indignant (Can you believe xyz?!), but it's not going to lead us anywhere useful.
Personally, I always try to think through the declaration. Even when I'm just by myself and there's no interaction happening. I have never regretted trying to be clear in my thinking or understanding what my limits are.
Personally, just hoping to learn the declaration skill.
I have similar problems in "steel manning". I think it's a useful exercise, but I tend to be too black-and-white to do it well. Many steps on the path to jedi master. : )
Two things come to mind:
1) We're assuming that "moral superiority" is even possible -- we're not moral relativists. I'm on board with that, but it is an assumption. And I suspect that most historical homophobia came from moral absolutists. That's not necessarily a good argument, but it's the sort that's often used ("<X> is bad because in the past group <Y> used <X> to oppress group <Z>")
2) I'll raise your "extreme case". What about prostitution (assuming an ideal world where there's no coercion)?
I'm not actually making a claim about whether moral superiority does or doesn't exist in any broader sense. Nor am I making a claim about moral relativism. (I address this misconception a little in #5 this post (https://thecertaintytrap.substack.com/p/ten-questions-about-the-certainty).) I'm making the much more mundane observation that people *feel* moral superiority.
Regarding your point 2, I'd like to give it thought, but I'm not sure I follow what the question is. What do you mean when you say "What about prostitution?"?
It seems that "I think all people should have equal rights under the law." is a rejection of moral relativism (vs. "In this culture, I think....."). I think "I am morally superior" means "I am closer to some absolute moral 'perfection'". (I can't claim "Papa Del's is superior to Dominoes" without believing in an absolute standard for judging pizza).
My real point was "People who claim moral superiority are acting as if they are moral absolutists". (which I find interesting)
Agreed, "we need to remain open to challenges", including those about moral relativism or absolutism.
The second part was just in response to your general rule about tolerating sex between consenting adults; I was curious if that tolerance extended to prostitution (again, assuming you could have consent).
Thanks,
Steve
I think I understand where the confusion is. Let me see if I can clarify. In this Uganda piece, for example, the statement that avoids the Certainty Trap *isn't* the assertion that "all people have equal rights under the law" (although that's an assertion I happen to agree with).
What avoids the Certainty Trap is (1) the clarity and precision in the principle I'm stating—in what's being violated for me when I object to the law. And (2) a willingness to have that principle examined, criticized, and questioned. But, importantly, I don't have to let it go.
That thinking applies to the prostitution example too. Avoiding the Certainty Trap is either about recognizing uncertainty *or* being precise and clear in the principle that's being violated when you hold your position (and recognizing that someone else could question it, given no idea, value, or principle is exempt from criticism or questioning).
Does that help? Ultimately, it's a philosophical and practical point with moral implications, but it's not fundamentally a moral argument.
I agree with your point about "remaining skeptical" being more of an epistemological issue than a moral one. And I completely agree that it's important to clearly state the assumptions/principles that you're working from.
I like the concept of the Certainty Trap.
Again, my comment was mainly about the moral implications of claiming moral superiority -- which isn't *necessarily* about how certain a person is about that claim.
I think that playing semantics with governmental polices that kill people is pretty academic and impotent. By that I mean, I think most people think that criminalising consensual sex is hateful and barbaric.
I find it much more important acknowledge the roots of anti-gay policies: religious bigotry. Kristof notes this in the NY Times about Ugandan anti-gay policy:
“American conservative Christian groups with records of fighting L.G.B.T.Q. rights have poured millions of dollars into African countries, according to a 2020 report. Some American evangelicals have been known to encourage anti-L.G.B.T.Q. legislation in countries such as Uganda. “
In the US we need to be thinking about why Christian fear gay people and criminalise anti-gay policies and actions
I hear you. But this isn't a semantic point. What's more, I could imagine an argument that says, it's precisely *because* the stakes are so high, that we can't afford to stand in moral superiority and condemn. It's an easy out.