I have recently written two posts on religion; one dealing with Islam, the other with the Roman Catholic flavour of Christianity.
I wonder if there is a contradiction between the positions I advance. In the former case, I argue for an individualistic freedom, saying that people should be able to wear what they want. In the latter case, I argue, effectively, against it, saying that people shouldn’t be able to discriminate in employment on the basis of sexuality.
On the homosexuality issue, I dislike the argument that it is natural because I really couldn’t care less if it’s natural or not. I’m typing on a computer that I am fairly sure does not normally occur in nature. Similarly, I see how religion spreads and replicates but I don’t think that removes or reduces people’s agency.
Is there, then, a contradiction between not thinking the state should ban the burka but saying that the state should regulate employment? Admittedly, part of my argument on the former question is fairly utilitarian as I think the negative consequences of a crude ban outweigh the benefits of any positive effects.
I’d like to know what you think?
xD.
Isn’t this just the old chestnut about self- and other-regarding actions? Wearing a burka does not harm anyone other than (possibly) the wearer, whereas discrimination on the labour market (for non-job relevant reasons) does harm other people (i.e. the job-seekers who are, in this case, gay).
That said, nothing wrong with not doing something because the downside would outweigh the upside…
DW – in answer to the second point, I agree but that’s not what I’m interested in here.
There’s a non-trivial argument that wearing the burka is a partially other-regarding issue as it sets up a social pressure to conform. Do we insist adoption agencies are even-handed because we believe equality is a priori right, good for society (or its opposite bad) or a combination of the two? Not sure.
xD.
The problem with accepting that something that does not directly harm someone else is, in fact, other-regarding, is that it always ends in a total mess…where do you draw the line? I applied to a phd-programme (self-regarding), but I harmed someone else at one step removed (by denying them a place). Every single action can be seen as other-regarding with just a little imagination. And wearing the burka does not harm someone. We may dislike it (and I do), but we do so because of the fact that it symbolises the repression of women, not because it hurts anyone (would you have a problem with un-married female partners in major law firms wearing a burka in their free time? No, because they are not oppressed [insert lawyer joke here]).
Indeed. It is a question of degree, and not absolute.
I actually don’t think it’s a question of degree – it’s binary. Either something harms someone else (directly), or it doesn’t. And we should be exceedingly wary of going down the path of banning things that are (at best) indirectly harmful.
Test. 1 2 3 test