In A Tragic Universe
Posted on October 21st, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
Helen Rittelmeyer responds with a good post elaborating on her earlier argument, and I have to say that I agree entirely with the following:
My “Red Socrates” thesis depends on the claim that cultural libertarianism is ill-equipped to make sense of a tragic universe. Tragedy involves looking at human suffering and saying that it was not only unavoidable but, more importantly, in some sense just and proper. Loyalties come into conflict and people get hurt, but that’s what’s supposed to happen when loyalties conflict!
I would say more than this. Cultural libertarianism is not only ill-equipped to make sense of tragic universe, but it assumes that a tragic universe–one affected by the consequences of the Fall–does not exist or if cultural libertarians accept that it exists they assume that virtually all troubles can be resolved or at least ameliorated. I detect an adapted version of Delsol’s Icarus Fallen argument that cultural libertarianism, like liberalism, is intent on trying to eliminate structural realities and burdens in our earthly life that cannot–and more to the point should not–be eliminated. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that cultural libertarianism simply seeks to avoid or ignore these realities. We cannot escape these realities, and we can at best divert them into new and potentially more dangerous forms, which Delsol dubs black markets.
Cultural libertarianism is not only ill-equipped to make sense of tragic universe, but it assumes that a tragic universe–one affected by the consequences of the Fall–does not exist or if cultural libertarians accept that it exists they assume that virtually all troubles can be resolved or at least ameliorated.
Are there any practical consequences that result from this assumption?
I don’t see any. I’m not aware of any cultural libertarians that believe that any human society will ever completely eliminate “irrational cruelty, material scarcity, haste, poor judgment, and incomplete knowledge” — I mean, the very notion is insane when looking at the time horizon of a single lifetime. Most cultural libertarians or blue staters might well be happy in countries that are significantly more liberal, such as those in Scandinavia. But even the most liberal countries on Earth still have child poverty, terrible accidents, rape, murder, etc. Blue staters that would like to see the US become more similar to those liberal countries don’t expect that all social ills will disappear, just that they will be reduced in frequency.
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but it seems that both you and Helen are dealing with a straw man version of cultural libertarianism that has extreme utopian views. Even if such beliefs were common (and I see no evidence to indicate they are), there doesn’t seem to be any reason to believe that they’re relevant to policy.
Somehow, this puts me in mind of Dostoyevsky’s apocryphal reply when a friend told him his prosecution had been unjust; “No! Just!”
It also reminds me of Marcus Aurelius’s axiom that “everything is as natural and as to be expected as the falling leaves in Autumn.”
I find thae catholic sensibility sort of comforting, but I can see how it might not be that way for everyone
It’s sort of a meaningless distinction, though, isn’t it? Even among those who believe in a ‘tragic universe,’ there’s very few who don’t want a better world. If your benchmark is a mere desire to reduce human suffering, I’m not sure how you can reasonably single out cultural libertarians/liberals for criticism.
[...] 2. I’m glad that my persistent targeting of cultural libertarianism is getting traction, yet Daniel is being extra-provocative when he says the following: Cultural libertarianism is not only ill-equipped to make sense of tragic universe, but it assumes that a tragic universe – one affected by the consequences of the Fall – does not exist or if cultural libertarians accept that it exists they assume that virtually all troubles can be resolved or at least ameliorated. I detect an adapted version of Delsol’s Icarus Fallen argument that cultural libertarianism, like liberalism, is intent on trying to eliminate structural realities and burdens in our earthly life that cannot – and more to the point should not – be eliminated. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that cultural libertarianism simply seeks to avoid or ignore these realities. We cannot escape these realities, and we can at best divert them into new and potentially more dangerous forms, which Delsol dubs black markets. [...]
Are you saying that if theoretically such things could be ameliorated it would be undesirable? Are you worried about transhumanism?