Best of the Week
Most Popular
1.SNP Offers Labour Deadly Death Embrace Alliance, Holding England to Ransom, Destroy UK From Within - Nadeem_Walayat
2.Gold And Silver – Most Widely Used Currency In Western World? Stupidity - Michael_Noonan
3.Election Forecast 2015 - Coalition Economic Recovery vs Labour Collapse - Nadeem_Walayat
4.Election Forecast 2015 - Debates Boost Labour Into Opinion Polls Seats Lead - Nadeem_Walayat
5.Why are Interest Rates So Low? Ben Bernanke, Confused as Ever, Starts His Own Blog to Prove It - Mike_Shedlock
6.Leaders Debate Election 2015 - Natalie Bennett Green Party Convincing Anti-Austerity More Debt Argument - Nadeem_Walayat
7.Labour Economic Collapse vs Coalition Recovery - UK Election Forecast 2015 - Video - Nadeem_Walayat
8.China’s Stock Market Mania; How High can Red-chips Fly? - Gary_Dorsch
9.Gold and Misery, Strange Bedfellows - 31st Mar 15 - Dan_Norcini
10.Ed Miliband Debate Election 2015 Analysis - Labour Spending, Debt and Economic Collapse - Nadeem_Walayat
Last 5 days
Sugar Commodity Price Bear Rally - 19th Apr 15
Avoid the Spread of the Stock Market "China Syndrome" - 19th Apr 15
Stock Market Going Nowhere Fast - 19th Apr 15
An Easy Way to Profit From the Two Biggest Trends in the Stock Market - 19th Apr 15
No Scripture Is Divine, Authentic and Beyond the Creation of the Human Brain - 19th Apr 15
Inflation, Central Banks, and Business Cycles - 18th Apr 15
Stock Market Correction May be Nearing End - 18th Apr 15
UK Housing Crisis, Immigration, Population Growth, Election Forecast 2015 - Video - 18th Apr 15
Q1 Corporate Earnings Risky for Stocks - 17th Apr 15
US Stock Market Getting Scarier by the Day - 17th Apr 15
Stock Market Watershed Day - 17th Apr 15
Gold Price Has “Hallmarks Of Market That Is Bottoming” - 17th Apr 15
Chinese Stock Market - Men Go Mad in Herds - 17th Apr 15
Two Stocks Offering Investors High Yields and Profits - 17th Apr 15
Gold Price Has “Hallmarks Of Market That Is Bottoming” - 17th Apr 15
Chinese Stock Market - Men Go Mad in Herds - 17th Apr 15
Two Stocks Offering Investors High Yields and Profits - 17th Apr 15
King Dollar Hurting Stock Market Corporate Earnings! - 17th Apr 15
Production Declines Hide Bigger Crude Oil Storage Issues - 17th Apr 15
Top Three Takeaways From Today’s OPEC Crude Oil Report… and How You Can Profit - 17th Apr 15
How to Profit from Australia's Healthiest Biotech Stocks - 17th Apr 15
What Is Really Driving Gold Price? - 17th Apr 15
Will Ever More Boomers Selling Retirement Assets Change Investment Prices For Decades? - 16th Apr 15
Won't Be Contagion with 'Grexit' Greece Euro-zone Exit - 16th Apr 15
Sharp Decline in USD/CAD and Its Consequences - 16th Apr 15
Blackstone is like Apple, Google, Hermes, Boeing - 16th Apr 15
The Most Dangerous Financial Headline I've Seen Since the 2008 Crisis - 16th Apr 15
Is Legal Tax Avoidance Extinct in the UK? - 16th Apr 15
Why Russia Will Send More Troops to Central Asia - 16th Apr 15
More Thoughts on the Current Crude Oil Market - 16th Apr 15
U.S. Treasury Secretary Warns Greek Exit Will Cause Enormous Disruption and Hardship - 16th Apr 15
The Hottest New Place to Find Stock Dividend Income in Q2/2015 - 15th Apr 15
How to Escape the Pensions Squeeze - 15th Apr 15
Water Crisis Game Changing Water Revolution - 15th Apr 15
The Drying of California - Corporate Farms Control of Water - 15th Apr 15
OPEC Going Broke, Dumping U.S. Dollars. Is That Good Or Bad? - 15th Apr 15
OPEC Just Confirmed It’s Losing the Oil War - 15th Apr 15
Four Uranium Companies Poised to Profit from the Growth of Nuclear Power - 15th Apr 15
Stock Investing Tread Softly… and Carry a Big Risk-Management Calculator - 15th Apr 15
Crude Oil Price Technical Outlook - 15th Apr 15
Important Bitcoin Price Action - 15th Apr 15
UK House Prices, Immigration, Population Growth and Election Forecast 2015 - 15th Apr 15
Peter Schiff on U.S. Dollars, Drachmas and Debt - Video - 14th Apr 15
The Ultimate Middle East Dilemma: Time For Us To Stop Intervening? - 14th Apr 15
Greece Debt Default and Drachma By End of April? - 14th Apr 15
Coming to Terms With the American Empire - 14th Apr 15
The Ball is in the Stock Market Bulls Court - 14th Apr 15
Tech Stocks Bubble: Different this time? - 14th Apr 15
Stock Market Sixth Sense - 14th Apr 15
Separating Gold and Silver Stocks Saints from the Sinners - 14th Apr 15
Conservatives Bribe Labour Voters by Extending Right to Buy to Housing Association Tenants - 14th Apr 15

Free Instant Analysis

Free Instant Technical Analysis


Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

US Historic Bubble

Freedom of Conscience: To What Extent?

Politics / Religion Dec 13, 2012 - 10:35 AM GMT

By: David_Gordon

Politics

In this very thoughtful book, Brian Leiter calls our attention to a paradox. In most liberal democracies, including the United States, religious believers often are exempt from laws that violate the tenets of their religion. By contrast, parallel claims of exemption on non-religious grounds tend to receive less consideration.


Leiter offers an apt example. In a Canadian case, a Sikh student was allowed to wear a ceremonial dagger, mandated by his religion; but a secular student who claimed that wearing a dagger was an integral part of his lifestyle would almost certainly not receive the same consideration. “The conscientious obligation a devout Sikh has to wear a kirpan [ceremonial dagger] is thought to be too serious---too important for the integrity and identity of this religious believer---to require him to forgo it because of the general prohibition on what anyone else would see as a weapon and a danger to school safety. But now suppose that our fourteen-year old boy is not a Sikh but a boy from a rural family whose life ‘on the land’ goes back many generations. . . . A boy’s identity as a man in his community turns on his always carrying the family knife. . .There is no Western democracy, at present, in which the boy in our second scenario has prevailed or would prevail in a challenge to a general prohibition on the carrying of weapons in the school.”(pp.2-3)

Why is this disparity in treatment a paradox? The problem arises for Leiter in large part because he views religion in a certain way. To him, religious beliefs fly in the face of reason and evidence: to accept conventional religion is irrational. He says, e.g., “Ancient testimonial evidence in favor of events that are inconsistent with all other scientific knowledge about how the world works is nowhere thought to constitute evidence for belief in a particular proposition, and that is exactly the status of the putative evidence in support of the resurrection of Christ.” (p.41) More generally, he says that “I am going to assume---uncontroversially among most philosophers but controversially among reformed epistemologists---that ‘reformed epistemology’ is nothing more than an effort to insulate religious faith from ordinary standards of reason and evidence. . .and thus religious belief is a culpable form of unwarranted belief given these ordinary epistemic standards.” (p.81, emphasis in original)[1] Here then is the paradox. If religious belief is irrational, why should it be given special privileges? Why should those who hold irrational beliefs be treated with indulgence not accorded to others?

Those familiar with Leiter’s frequent battles on his influential website with the “Texas Taliban” may anticipate an all-out assault on the special position of religion, but Leiter has a surprise in store. Following Nietzsche, his favorite philosopher, he holds that false beliefs can be necessary for life: the falsity of religious beliefs does not for Leiter settle the issue of the public status of religion. “I have adopted throughout what seems to me the clearly correct Nietzschean posture---namely that the falsity of beliefs and/or their lack of epistemic warrant are not necessarily objections to those beliefs; indeed, false or unwarranted beliefs are almost certainly, as Nietzsche so often says, necessary conditions of life itself, and so of considerable value, and certainly enough value to warrant toleration.” (p.91, emphasis in original) Those who favor active measures to diminish the influence of religion in public life might appeal to the bad consequences of belief: what of all those massacred in the name of religion? Leiter in response says, “there is no reason to think that beliefs unhinged from reason and evidence and that issue in categorical demands on action are especially likely to issue in ‘harm’ to others.”(p.83)[2]

If Leiter does not favor the public crusade against religion one might have anticipated from him, he by no means supports granting religion a special place in the law. He argues, on both deontological and consequentialist grounds, that people’s beliefs and practices should be tolerated. People are normally entitled to freedom of conscience. “The strictly moral arguments for toleration claim either that there is a right to hold the beliefs and engage in the practices of which toleration is required; or that toleration of those beliefs and practices is essential to the realization of morally important goods. The moral arguments divide, predictably enough, into Kantian and utilitarian forms.”(p.15)The right to act in accord with one’s conscience is however not absolute: someone could not, e.g., justifiably use the teachings of his religion to demand that the practice of child sacrifice be allowed. Leiter calls these limits “side- constraints.”[3]

Leiter thus subsumes religious exemptions within the more general category of freedom of conscience. In his view, religion should not be singled out for special treatment; and religion should be “tolerated” rather than accorded “the affirmative kind of appraisal respect”, which goes beyond toleration. Though people’s right to believe merits what he calls “recognition respect,” the contents of religious beliefs, owing to their anti-rational character, do not deserve “appraisal respect.”

Libertarians will applaud Leiter’s excellent arguments for freedom of conscience, but he does not take them as far as we would wish. He thinks that all states must operate from a “Vision of the Good”, “a vision, broadly speaking, of what is true or important” (p.118): and that the state may act to promote its Vision, even though doing this puts it at odds with the beliefs of various groups within it. The Rawlsian notion of neutrality among these Visions is chimerical. “Rawlsian political liberals think a state can actually abstain from promoting a Vision of the Good that isn’t generally accepted. . . though it seems to me that they typically just denominate as ‘unreasonable’ anyone who has a Vision of the Good incompatible with the Rawlsian vision of a ‘political’ conception of liberalism..” (p.122, note 38)

Given the necessity for such a Vision, the state can, e.g., exclude creationist teaching from public schools. ”The state may endorse a Vision of the Good according to which religious explanations for the origin of human life are mythologies that have no place in the public schools, but what they [the state?] may not do is prevent the creationists and intelligent design proponents from articulating those views in private and in public (if not in the state schools.)”(p.121) Parents with creationist views would not be entitled to have their children taught in public schools in a way consonant with their beliefs. Of course, if there are no public schools, this problem does not arise.

More generally, Leiter is wary of attempts to extend claims of conscientious objections to laws. “Given the lack of any good moral reason for treating the nonreligious unequally with regard to claims of conscience, one obvious solution would be to extend the breadth of exemptions from generally applicable laws to all claims of conscience, religious or not. . .it seems unlikely that any legal system will embrace this capacious approach to liberty of conscience that would involve according all these claims of conscience equal legal standing.”(p.91)

Leiter seems to me right that states, particularly those that maintain a system of public education, must operate from a particular Vision of the Good; and if they do so, they will operate in a way that dissident groups within them deplore. But to libertarians, this is a reason not to establish a state of this sort in the first place. If a state will almost inevitably pass laws that violate the consciences of some of its citizens, is this not a significant argument against it? Leiter asks, “what legal system will say ’this is the law, but, of course, you have the right to disregard it on grounds of conscience’? This would appear to amount to a legalization of anarchy!”(p.91) Libertarians will answer, ‘Yes, precisely!” [4]

David Gordon covers new books in economics, politics, philosophy, and law for The Mises Review, the quarterly review of literature in the social sciences, published since 1995 by the Mises Institute. He is author of The Essential Rothbard, available in the Mises Store. Send him mail. See his article archives. Comment on the blog.

© 2012 Copyright Ludwig von Mises - All Rights Reserved Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.


© 2005-2015 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


Post Comment

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in

Free Report - Financial Markets 2014