"The problem I see with Miller’s Christian Republicanism is that he’s trying too hard to promote Christianity, when he should instead try harder to promote Republicanism. This is odd because his audience are primarily Christians, and at this moment of history, conservative Christians aren’t giving up on Christianity, but on secular, liberal pluralistic republicanism." - Brilliant, insightful, directly separates the wheat from the chaff. He is (or appears to be, I am trusting your representations) defending Christianity as something that tolerates Republicanism, which, quite frankly, reveals a deeply odd and trouble state of affairs for us all, I think.
Interesting that you mention Nozick, he has been on my brain, too. I brought the introduction to Anarchy, State, Utopia to a reading group and we kind of ripped it to shreds - he's not a man I agree with and I think he reflects a strain of political theorizing that has been shed for not yielding great insights - although I did earnestly want to think about the book, which I read chapters of back in ye olde collegiate days. He grabs onto a very important lightning rod and I think his willingness to go through the academic steps is more than many libertarian commentators will deign to do - to his credit.
Christianity has been troubling me lately. I did religious studies as an undergrad and have long been curious about the cross- and inter-cultural, and so I have always put a little box of respect around most religious beliefs. And I know enough about Islam, in a few different parts of the world, to understand that the box of respect is important because often individual beliefs and practice have surprising deviations from what outsiders project as the 'party line.' I have a deep fascination for Mormonism's history in the US and spent a decade of adult life as an earnest Episcopalian.
But lately my patience has been wearing thin. The attacks on gender (I am nonbinary) have become so vicious and short-sighted. Some of these open plans for strange monarchies and other authoritarian knock-offs; I cannot really abide it. I find myself speaking out against it more and more, and directly labeling the religious belief or the religious stance as the root of the harm being done.
I think there is something strange lurking here: "The problem is that the meta-ethical conception of virtue for conservative Christians and secularists are incompatible. A secular virtue ethicist can evaluate virtues and vices based on their consequences. A Christian virtue ethicist, on the other hand, is more restricted by his tradition." I do think many meta-ethical disputes 'come out in the wash' - that is, a wide variety of political outlooks and personal motivations can generate a surprisingly narrow window of policy conclusions. I also think we cannot underestimate the ideological strands of secularism that create the same kind of 'tradition restrictions' as Christianity. I do not have the answer for you but I think this means that our political aims might be orientable around issues besides 'meta-ethical conceptions of virtue'. And it might be interesting to explore what other ordering principles are out there.
This is great! I honestly have no notes haha I'll admit that I haven't read Nozik, but know that he pioneered the concept that liberalism being value-neutral on the good/concept of virtue/etc lended to the conclusion that under such a capitalistic system, people could pursue separate, insoluble conceptions of the good, and no other system affords that. I too am skeptical of libertarian types, but I think that insight was true.
Yes and I think just as famously he coughed up the idea that the only appropriate government was one limited to courts for private disputes, police for public safety, and army/foreign service for national security. Well maybe he did not cough it up Rand was already stating it and finding acolytes to spread the gospel, but he coughed it up from one of the first clearly grounded academic perspectives. Or he concludes that what you mention - commitment to liberalism as value neutral - yields the above list of tolerable government functions.
The idea that the state of nature can lead to ideological groupings/states with different ends that must ultimately be reconciled and allowed to exist in difference, and that free market/rational processes will lead to the selection of the best liberal government (court police army only)... it is interesting, it is nice to see the logic, it is important to understand that that IS the undergirding logic of a lot of libertarianism - I suppose my real complaint is that 'free market' and 'rational processes' might be further apart than the / implies.
"The problem I see with Miller’s Christian Republicanism is that he’s trying too hard to promote Christianity, when he should instead try harder to promote Republicanism. This is odd because his audience are primarily Christians, and at this moment of history, conservative Christians aren’t giving up on Christianity, but on secular, liberal pluralistic republicanism." - Brilliant, insightful, directly separates the wheat from the chaff. He is (or appears to be, I am trusting your representations) defending Christianity as something that tolerates Republicanism, which, quite frankly, reveals a deeply odd and trouble state of affairs for us all, I think.
Interesting that you mention Nozick, he has been on my brain, too. I brought the introduction to Anarchy, State, Utopia to a reading group and we kind of ripped it to shreds - he's not a man I agree with and I think he reflects a strain of political theorizing that has been shed for not yielding great insights - although I did earnestly want to think about the book, which I read chapters of back in ye olde collegiate days. He grabs onto a very important lightning rod and I think his willingness to go through the academic steps is more than many libertarian commentators will deign to do - to his credit.
Christianity has been troubling me lately. I did religious studies as an undergrad and have long been curious about the cross- and inter-cultural, and so I have always put a little box of respect around most religious beliefs. And I know enough about Islam, in a few different parts of the world, to understand that the box of respect is important because often individual beliefs and practice have surprising deviations from what outsiders project as the 'party line.' I have a deep fascination for Mormonism's history in the US and spent a decade of adult life as an earnest Episcopalian.
But lately my patience has been wearing thin. The attacks on gender (I am nonbinary) have become so vicious and short-sighted. Some of these open plans for strange monarchies and other authoritarian knock-offs; I cannot really abide it. I find myself speaking out against it more and more, and directly labeling the religious belief or the religious stance as the root of the harm being done.
I think there is something strange lurking here: "The problem is that the meta-ethical conception of virtue for conservative Christians and secularists are incompatible. A secular virtue ethicist can evaluate virtues and vices based on their consequences. A Christian virtue ethicist, on the other hand, is more restricted by his tradition." I do think many meta-ethical disputes 'come out in the wash' - that is, a wide variety of political outlooks and personal motivations can generate a surprisingly narrow window of policy conclusions. I also think we cannot underestimate the ideological strands of secularism that create the same kind of 'tradition restrictions' as Christianity. I do not have the answer for you but I think this means that our political aims might be orientable around issues besides 'meta-ethical conceptions of virtue'. And it might be interesting to explore what other ordering principles are out there.
This is great! I honestly have no notes haha I'll admit that I haven't read Nozik, but know that he pioneered the concept that liberalism being value-neutral on the good/concept of virtue/etc lended to the conclusion that under such a capitalistic system, people could pursue separate, insoluble conceptions of the good, and no other system affords that. I too am skeptical of libertarian types, but I think that insight was true.
Yes and I think just as famously he coughed up the idea that the only appropriate government was one limited to courts for private disputes, police for public safety, and army/foreign service for national security. Well maybe he did not cough it up Rand was already stating it and finding acolytes to spread the gospel, but he coughed it up from one of the first clearly grounded academic perspectives. Or he concludes that what you mention - commitment to liberalism as value neutral - yields the above list of tolerable government functions.
The idea that the state of nature can lead to ideological groupings/states with different ends that must ultimately be reconciled and allowed to exist in difference, and that free market/rational processes will lead to the selection of the best liberal government (court police army only)... it is interesting, it is nice to see the logic, it is important to understand that that IS the undergirding logic of a lot of libertarianism - I suppose my real complaint is that 'free market' and 'rational processes' might be further apart than the / implies.