Votes for Oysters
Is self-contradiction an irresistible part of argument? How can we be so blinded by anger for those of other opinions that we fail to see our own inconsistencies?
A recent line of thought on my friend Aaron’s Blog has spurned some serious contemplation for me. In the string, an anonymous user attempts to de-humanize Terri Shiavo as an excuse for ending her current existence. He makes many outrageous claims, but the one I will key in on is his claim that she is no longer human and therefore should die. It brought to mind an inconsistency in liberals that I have noticed over the years, one in which I believe few people have mentioned.
It is an understood fact that most liberals support Darwin’s theory of Evolution (or is it Anaximander’s?). The enormous battle that has waged in recent years over Evolutionary theory in public schools and the insertion of Creationism masked under the name “Intelligent Design” is clear evidence of the liberal and conservative positions, respectively. But as liberals clasp to Evolution in an attempt to counter belief in God, they are squeezing so tightly that other issues important to their primary tenets are seeping through their fingers.
Let me yield some examples. The doctrine that all men are equal, that the differences in them are due entirely to education, background, and opportunity (see Helveticus), takes a serious blow. This view of mankind is wholly incompatible with the Evolutionary emphasis on the congenital differences between members of a species. Either Darwin was right and all men are NOT equal, or Helveticus was right and all men ARE equal. I cannot see how both men can be entirely correct simultaneously.
Another problem for liberals clinging to evolution is the blurring of the distinction between humans and animals (see Peter Singer). If man and animals share a common ancestry, and if mankind developed at such a slow stages that there were creatures that we are unable to classify as either animal or human, at what point in the evolutionary process did men all begin to be equal? Would Pithecanthropus Erectus have produced the great works of Shakespeare had there been someone to convict him of poaching? A resolute egalitarian who answers in the affirmative would find himself granting apes equality to humans. And why stop with apes? (again, see Singer) I can’t see how, once we head down this line of arguments, one cannot resist an argument in favor of Votes for Oysters. (Courtesy of Bertrand Russell) An adherent to both evolution and the equality of man must then concede that this equality must be condemned unbiological since it makes too large of a distinction between men and animals.
The Theory of Evolution in regards to creation is an incoherent weapon for liberals to wield. It is only when it is applied to society, as Social Evolution that the theory proves legitimately useful to liberals, as it can emphasise change and progress for the good, a tenet of original liberalism that many today have lost opting instead to hold to their dogmatic tendencies of being the antithesis to the religious right. Back to Basics?
A recent line of thought on my friend Aaron’s Blog has spurned some serious contemplation for me. In the string, an anonymous user attempts to de-humanize Terri Shiavo as an excuse for ending her current existence. He makes many outrageous claims, but the one I will key in on is his claim that she is no longer human and therefore should die. It brought to mind an inconsistency in liberals that I have noticed over the years, one in which I believe few people have mentioned.
It is an understood fact that most liberals support Darwin’s theory of Evolution (or is it Anaximander’s?). The enormous battle that has waged in recent years over Evolutionary theory in public schools and the insertion of Creationism masked under the name “Intelligent Design” is clear evidence of the liberal and conservative positions, respectively. But as liberals clasp to Evolution in an attempt to counter belief in God, they are squeezing so tightly that other issues important to their primary tenets are seeping through their fingers.
Let me yield some examples. The doctrine that all men are equal, that the differences in them are due entirely to education, background, and opportunity (see Helveticus), takes a serious blow. This view of mankind is wholly incompatible with the Evolutionary emphasis on the congenital differences between members of a species. Either Darwin was right and all men are NOT equal, or Helveticus was right and all men ARE equal. I cannot see how both men can be entirely correct simultaneously.
Another problem for liberals clinging to evolution is the blurring of the distinction between humans and animals (see Peter Singer). If man and animals share a common ancestry, and if mankind developed at such a slow stages that there were creatures that we are unable to classify as either animal or human, at what point in the evolutionary process did men all begin to be equal? Would Pithecanthropus Erectus have produced the great works of Shakespeare had there been someone to convict him of poaching? A resolute egalitarian who answers in the affirmative would find himself granting apes equality to humans. And why stop with apes? (again, see Singer) I can’t see how, once we head down this line of arguments, one cannot resist an argument in favor of Votes for Oysters. (Courtesy of Bertrand Russell) An adherent to both evolution and the equality of man must then concede that this equality must be condemned unbiological since it makes too large of a distinction between men and animals.
The Theory of Evolution in regards to creation is an incoherent weapon for liberals to wield. It is only when it is applied to society, as Social Evolution that the theory proves legitimately useful to liberals, as it can emphasise change and progress for the good, a tenet of original liberalism that many today have lost opting instead to hold to their dogmatic tendencies of being the antithesis to the religious right. Back to Basics?
posted by Cogito at 9:31 AM
9 comments
