Sunday, September 23, 2018

I wrote this a while ago, but it seems more and more relevant. I consider myself left-wing but increasingly, I see people who are left-wing and liberal come out strongly against freedom of debate. As someone who grew up Catholic - proper devout Catholic, not 'well we say we're Catholic but it doesn't affect how we act' - I know firsthand how people who are convinced they are the goodies, who genuinely act in the belief they are on the right side of history, can be creating a culture where terrible things happen. And this happens - the Magdalene Laundries, symphysiotomy, child abuse and the harm that came from the Eighth Amendment - because people don't question dogma. Or they are not allowed to question it.

A print shop recently hit the headlines for refusing to print invitations for a gay wedding, on religious grounds. Something similar happened a while ago with another stationer, Daintree (now under new ownership). Now, as then, the online comments split along two opinions: that the stationer was wrong, and that the stationer had a right to uphold personal beliefs. The owner of Daintree said that he removed a cake topper showing a gay couple from his shop because he was acting on his principles, and that his principles also led him to run his business in an eco-friendly way. He was condemned for one and lauded for the other.

I've turned down a customer once on ethical grounds - I was asked to design a card for people who like hunting; while I agree with necessary culling (where natural predators no longer exist), I don't understand people who actually derive pleasure from killing animals, and I believe that bloodsports contribute to the suffering of animals, so I said no. I can't say for sure, but I would expect that most people would agree I had a right to refuse this customer, even if they disagree with my views on hunting.

For me the difference is this: the print shop that refused a gay couple had no clear argument regarding any harm that gay marriage does, whereas it's fairly straightforward that hunting involves the suffering of the animals. I think if you can make a clear ethical argument, then you're not discriminating.

A good few years ago I was asked to take on a project which I wanted to refuse. It was for a company in the chemical industry. I grew up across the road from a chemical factory which I hated with a passion.

In an informal conversation, it's possible I would have just said 'Ugh, chemical companies,' and left it at that. The problem was, that this was a business request. The only civil way I could decline was to give clear, undeniable reasons. So I sat down to articulate my reasons. First of all I looked up a list of polluters from the EPA. The company weren't on it. Some chemical companies were, but so were some farms. I said to myself, well, I'm against it in principle. But I used ink cartridges that were made by chemical companies, and as someone who gets migraines, I would not want to live in a world without painkillers. Art supplies, fabrics, the fact that I eat vegetarian cheese - the products of the chemical industry were fairly ubiquitous in my life. I couldn't come up with a clear ethical argument against it. So I accepted the commission.

As a result I read fascinating books like 'The Periodic Kingdom' and 'What is Chemistry?' by Peter Atkins; 'Prometheans in the Lab' by Sharon Bertsch McGrayne and 'The Periodic Table' by Primo Levi. I read Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Medicine' and his next book 'Bad Pharma', and recently his collection of essays 'I Think You'll Find It's a Bit More Complicated Than That'. All of Goldacre's books gave me an appreciation for how science is about uncertainty, and the painstaking accumulation of knowledge. I read Stuart Sutherland's 'Irrationality', which discusses how imperfect our brains are, and the importance of the scientific method in navigating the world. I watched Youtube lectures by amazing chemists like Andrea Sella and Andrew Szydlo. Instead of having a vague notion of science as being cold and heartless, I discovered it's endlessly interesting, and scientists like Jim Al-Khalili are funny, warm, and ready to admit when they don't know something.

I would say that demanding of myself a clear explanation for turning down that project, in the end, changed my life and who I am. It can feel really bad to read or listen to arguments against your beliefs, I don't know why. I made myself do it, and I found out I was wrong about a lot of stuff. I still make myself listen to people with whom I disagree. Nothing seems more abhorrent to me than free-market capitalism, but every so often I'll listen to a lecture about it. The trick, I've found, is to say to yourself, 'The person who is arguing for this really, truly believes it is right'. Then you can give them a fair hearing, and be open-minded. Its easier if you can find someone who is likeable.

Another strategy is to list all the reasons you want your own opinion to hold true. These aren't the same as the logical reasons you hold an opinion. To clarify: someone may believe in an after life based on various experiences or philosophical arguments. But they may want to believe in an after life because otherwise they find death frightening. Listing the reasons you want something to be true allows you to be aware of your own biases. (It also allows you to examine those motivations head-on; you may find that death without an after-life isn't actually so scary a prospect after all).

While my friends would be well aware of it, I've actually felt a little bit afraid of outing myself as a sceptic, as pro-science. Sometimes, in social situations, I've been told I'm closed-minded. Which, considering I gave up cherished and comforting beliefs because I examined all the arguments for them and found them too weak, is a bit unfair. My beliefs affect other people through the way I run my business; through the way I vote in referendums or elections; through the decisions I make as a consumer. If I have a 'feeling', how do I know that's not just prejudice? There is no magic book with a list of right opinions to have, whether it's regarding gay marriage or hunting. The only thing I can do, if I want to be a good person, is make sure my opinions are logical and based as far as possible on fact. Nobody is right on every issue. We need other people to share their views and reasoning with us, and to help us see the flaws in our own arguments.

And if someone else is wrong, we can only persuade them to change their mind if we properly understand their position. During the referendum on the Eighth Amendment, I saw people arguing against fictitious pro-lifers. The argument 'If you don't like abortions, don't have one' - who exactly is that talking to? I knew some pro-life people, and they *all* opposed abortion because they saw it as a form of murder. Who would say 'If you don't like murder, don't do it'? I think I convinced a few pro-life people to vote in favour of repeal, and in one case, someone who was very strongly pro-life, I believe I persuaded them just not to vote. Which was a big deal. I did this, by acknowledging their actual reasons. I knew their actual reasons by listening to them. But if we silence people with whom we disagree, we never get to do this.

I believe most people are, fundamentally, not assholes. I believe even more strongly that people don't like to think of themselves as assholes. If someone has an opinion that seems bad to us, how have they convinced themselves they're in the right? What do they know that we don't know? Or what are they missing, that we can fill them in on?

Do I always act according to this high ideal of free speech? No. Especially if I feel an argument is disingenuous, I get irritated, exasperated. And hearing things you strongly disagree with, never feels good. It just doesn't. But, I think we can learn to recognise that, and stop ourselves. Breathe in, breathe out, and as Big Block Singsong say, Find a Better Way.