Huemer, Me, and the Rationality of Social Conservatism

A recap, then the finale.

Previously, on The Huemer-Caplan Dialogues…

…Michael Huemer stated that:

Liberal views about sexuality, gender roles, etc., might be contributing to low fertility. Contrast the stereotypical conservative views with liberal views about these things…

and

All this poses something of a dilemma, because the liberal views on nearly all of the above points are clearly the correct, rational views. (Sorry, conservatives.) (Exception: abortion.)

…I replied:

[M]ost of the relevant fertility-relevant ideas about the family and sexuality that Mike deems blatantly false possess more than a kernel of truth. Indeed, they’re “mostly true” rather than “irrational.” Based on past experience, I predict that Mike will acknowledge my large amendment fairly readily.

After Huemer wrote a response that acknowledged many of my points, I emailed him:

Call me greedy, but can I get an official concession that most of the conservative views on family and fertility that you initially described as “irrational” are actually “mostly true”?

He responded:

You'd have to list the specific conservative views that you're thinking of before I could evaluate that.

So I sent him a list. Here’s Huemer’s response, reprinted with his permission. I’m in blockquotes, he’s not.

I met Mike Huemer in Paul Feyerabend’s Ancient Philosophy class at UC Berkeley in 1989. What are the odds?

---

Sex. “Lots of casual sex is fun in the short-run, especially for males. That said, human beings, including males, seem much happier in long-run relationships.

Agreed. I never questioned that. The "conservative view" I referred to claims that premarital sex is wrong, that sex should only be for reproduction, and things like that -- which are obviously silly. Saying that is perfectly compatible with saying that people are usually happier in long-term relationships.

Family. “In the long run, family typically matters more for your happiness than either career success or what passes for ‘personal fulfillment.’”

This is plausible. I never meant to deny that either. I only meant to suggest that these things are of comparable importance.

Gender roles. There are medium-to-large differences between men and women on almost everything important. Gender stereotypes remain highly accurate. On average, the traditional sexual division of labor makes both men and women better-off.

I never meant to question biological differences between male and female psychology either. The "traditional division of labor" had some basis in those differences, but I believe it was overly restrictive, particularly about women pursuing careers.

Abortion. Besides the complexity of the moral arguments, there is good evidence that women overestimate the negative effects of unwanted pregnancies. Women who say, “A baby would ruin my life” are typically deeply mistaken.

Again, never disagreed with that.

LGBT stuff. We should accept the small share of the population that really is happier living a non-straight lifestyle, but think that the recent rise of LGBT is mostly a social contagion of troubles youths.

Also true, also something I never disagreed with. In fact, my next book, Progressive Myths, includes a chapter on the social contagion problem regarding transgenderism. I.e., many people are confused about their gender, though I suspect far fewer are confused about their sexual orientation.

The main point of disagreement I have is with the idea that we ever had all these disagreements. I really wasn't making all these extreme claims that people are attacking, nor was "Liberal view" in the original piece supposed to mean "What I, Mike Huemer, believe to be the precise and complete truth.”