Libraries and the Culture Wars

[Istiblennius]

The free exercise clause protects freedom of religion, but it doesn't mean you have the freedom to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else. We also have freedom from religion covered by the establishment clause.

[dismalist]

While there has surely been taxpayer support for public libraries, I wonder how much taxpayer support there would be for public meeting halls?

[Parasaurolophus]

The idea that it is immoral to eat meat is a belief, an ideology.

Given the strength of argument behind it, it's rather stronger than that.

It's true that you can't point your microscope to moral facts of the matter. But just as with science, not all evidence is direct. And here, there's a significant confluence of indirect evidence. And direct evidence for and against allied propositions does enter into it. This allows us to draw some robust inferences.

Consider the reasons people have for eating meat; these basically never boil down to its necessity. What's more, when pressed, ordinary people will almost always agree that causing unnecessary harm, suffering, or death is morally wrong. For anyone who does so, it's a simple enough matter to show that, as a matter of objective fact, eating meat causes unnecessary harm, suffering, or death--indeed, that eating meat at all is objectively unnecessary. Similarly, many ordinary people will justify eating fish to themselves because fish are not intelligent, or cannot feel pain. These posits are objectively false (they may be true of some arthropods, but the evidence is mixed). Again, anyone who has that commitment is simply mistaken about the extension of their core commitment to not harming things.

Like i said above, there are very few people out there whose moral commitments boil down to an outright acceptance that eating meat is morally good (or even neutral). When they do, my experience has been that they are not founded on any kind of reflection on the ethics in question. Just about everyone, when pressed, agrees that it is wrong. A solid majority then cite mitigating reasons, and these are usually perfectly evaluable in terms of real-world observable facts.

What are morals, and where do they come from?

That's a question for a meta-ethicist. Most people (and a plurality of ethicists and meta-ethicists) appear to be some stripe of moral realist, which means that they believe there are matters of moral fact. I incline towards moral fictionalism, which is a species of moral anti-realism but (1) that's above the fora's paygrade (and it doesn't quite mean what it sounds like it means), and (2) I'm not a meta-ethicist.

And if I wish to be called or classified as an 'ethicist', how do I go about acquiring this status?   This is not the same as being able to teach a class about ethics, especially from an historical or cross-cultural/ cross-religions or philosophical basis, of course.

An ethicist is a professional with significant formal training in ethics, usually through a philosophy department, a bioethics department (often these are part of the philosophy department), or as part of a medical institution's bioethics unit. They will have significant training in applied ethics, ethical theory, and at least some meta-ethics.

[marshwiggle]

The free exercise clause protects freedom of religion, but it doesn't mean you have the freedom to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else. We also have freedom from religion covered by the establishment clause.

The odd loophole is that any beliefs which can be expressed in completely non-religious terms can in principle be imposed at will.

[Wahoo Redux]

The free exercise clause protects freedom of religion, but it doesn't mean you have the freedom to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else. We also have freedom from religion covered by the establishment clause.

The odd loophole is that any beliefs which can be expressed in completely non-religious terms can in principle be imposed at will.

Oh Marshy...

[marshwiggle]

The free exercise clause protects freedom of religion, but it doesn't mean you have the freedom to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else. We also have freedom from religion covered by the establishment clause.

The odd loophole is that any beliefs which can be expressed in completely non-religious terms can in principle be imposed at will.

Oh Marshy...

Oh Wahoo...




Great rebuttal, isn't it?

[Wahoo Redux]

My point was that there are all kinds of moral questions that are a very big deal to some people, and much less so to others. (This is independent of which "side" of the issue they're on.) Public institutions (like libraries) should avoid taking strong stances on things on which there is a range of opinion, since they are to serve all members of society as equally as possible.

Agreed.  I have said this several times.  In fact, no one is arguing that libraries should take a stance on moral issues.  No one has said that.  What are you arguing?

(So, much as I've tried to make it clear, I'm for libraries having a lot of leeway about what books to have in the library; my concern is for what public events the library holds or hosts.)

No, that hasn't been clear.

The one thing the library should be "activist" about, if we must think in those terms, is letting people be free to choose what to read.

You know that this is where this whole thing started-----a group of parents decided certain books should be removed from the local library so no one could read them.

What'cha'sayin' there, Marshvarmint?   

[Wahoo Redux]

The free exercise clause protects freedom of religion, but it doesn't mean you have the freedom to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else. We also have freedom from religion covered by the establishment clause.

The odd loophole is that any beliefs which can be expressed in completely non-religious terms can in principle be imposed at will.

Oh Marshy...

Oh Wahoo...




Great rebuttal, isn't it?

Rebuttal to what? 

That "any beliefs which can be expressed in completely non-religious terms can in principle be imposed at will."

What are you talking about?  What beliefs are "imposed at will?"

[nebo113]

When I was of young and tender years, the public library bestowed upon me a "youth " card, which prohibited me from entering the dark and evil realm of ....gasp....adult books.  My youth card, clutched in my grimy little hand, let me enter only the door marked "Childrens".   Ah, sweet bird  of youth.....to which, of course,  I was denied access.

[apl68]

When I was of young and tender years, the public library bestowed upon me a "youth " card, which prohibited me from entering the dark and evil realm of ....gasp....adult books.  My youth card, clutched in my grimy little hand, let me enter only the door marked "Childrens".   Ah, sweet bird  of youth.....to which, of course,  I was denied access.

My mother has told me of having to read something by Faulkner for a high school assignment--this was back when he was still a contemporary author--and being challenged by the librarian over trying to check it out.  I think she had to get her teacher to vouch for it being an actual assignment.  And Mom was nobody's idea of teen rebel back in the day.

[marshwiggle]

That "any beliefs which can be expressed in completely non-religious terms can in principle be imposed at will."

What are you talking about?  What beliefs are "imposed at will?"

Consider the question about eating meat.

A (non-religious) vegan can claim that eating meat is unethical because it requires killing animals.

A 7th Day Adventist can claim  that eating meat is unethical because it requires killing animals, because the creation narrative only lists plants as food for humans.

My point is that the two claims are essentially the same in principle (killing animals is immoral) and in intent (prohibit eating meat) but the first is OK to discuss, while the second is off limits. It's odd because the first simply makes an assertion (killing animals is wrong) while the second actually provides rationale (albeit religious) for it.

For almost any issue where there is a "religious" argument, there is at least one (and sometimes more) "non-religious" argument which can be made with a similar claim but  lacking the "religious" justification and which is therefore officially OK.

[Wahoo Redux]

That "any beliefs which can be expressed in completely non-religious terms can in principle be imposed at will."

What are you talking about?  What beliefs are "imposed at will?"

Consider the question about eating meat.

A (non-religious) vegan can claim that eating meat is unethical because it requires killing animals.

A 7th Day Adventist can claim  that eating meat is unethical because it requires killing animals, because the creation narrative only lists plants as food for humans.

My point is that the two claims are essentially the same in principle (killing animals is immoral) and in intent (prohibit eating meat) but the first is OK to discuss, while the second is off limits. It's odd because the first simply makes an assertion (killing animals is wrong) while the second actually provides rationale (albeit religious) for it.

For almost any issue where there is a "religious" argument, there is at least one (and sometimes more) "non-religious" argument which can be made with a similar claim but  lacking the "religious" justification and which is therefore officially OK.

None of those can be "imposed at will" by anybody.