Month: February 2022

Last week, I opened a discussion on the Freedom Convoy that occupied Ottawa and blockaded key international crossings for weeks. The Convoy was supported by a range of groups, some respectable and some abominable. I chose only to discuss the views of the more constructive groups, and I left the neo-Nazis, the thugs, and the white supremacists to be handled by writers elsewhere. Since values analysis is about understanding and accounting for people who hold different moral compasses, it is necessary to distinguish between the various sub-groups in a broad movement and to be explicit about the sub-groups under examination. Individuals hold a diverse range of values, and it is critical to make fair distinctions within movements when warranted. If this process of sifting is not undertaken properly, values analysis becomes an exercise creating strawmen, rather than truly accounting for moral preferences. In other words, it becomes useless.

With that said, my previous article outlined how Convoy was given moral force by the Liberty value (i.e. i.e. freedom and autonomy are moral goods). In short, the public health measures implemented to address the COVID-19 pandemic have repeatedly violated this value, as Canadians were forced to accept restrictions on their freedoms of movement that would have been unthinkable in the “Before Times.” For the first two years, people believed that the restrictions were morally justified, but this consensus has collapsed. A significant proportion of the Convoy was made up of individuals who value the Liberty value most, and they are most willing to protest (and to be arrested) for it.

Read more

On this website, I try to avoid commenting explicitly on Canadian politics. As a non-partisan public servant, I have a duty to neither openly praise nor criticize the elected government, and I take this responsibility seriously. As a result, I’ve spent much more time analyzing U.S. gun control policy and Australian immigration controversies than the most important matters in Canada. As much as I’d like to dig into these issues, this is usually not the place to do so.

But I would like to make an exception in this case and weigh in on the trucker protests that have gripped Ottawa. Not only because they have weighed on tens of thousands of people who live in my city, but also because the protests are being watched and emulated by activists around the world. The events occurring in Ottawa and at the border are unprecedented, internationally relevant, and right on topic for this blog. I would be remiss if I neglected to speak about them.

Before continuing, I’d also like to be explicit about one thing: I will not be addressing the worst of the protesters in this article. Yes, there were Nazi and Confederate flags brandished about the downtown core. Yes, many of the protesters have acted like thugs. Indeed, many of the methods used, from honking train horns in the night to assaulting mask-wearers, were contemptible. I have been blessed in living far from the action, and I don’t wish to overlook the strain that these protests have placed on many of my friends and colleagues. Neither do I wish to excuse the worst of the behavior seen recently in downtown Ottawa.

Read more

Last week, I presented a model of misinformation that draws heavily on insights from values analysis. The Care value (i.e. causing pain is wrong, especially to the vulnerable) has become the basis of most polite debate, as commenters try to outline why their chosen policies create more tangible benefit (e.g. economic growth, lives saved, etc.). Many people would argue that the prominence of the Care value is a positive development, because it ensures that public policy is designed to bring the most happiness to the greatest number of people.

However, such an approach has pushed other moral arguments to the margins, even if they remain salient to people’s decision-making. For example, it is no longer politically correct to claim that your country is simply better than others’, a viewpoint that draws heavily on the Loyalty value (i.e. people have special moral responsibilities to in-group members). That’s unlikely to be a winning argument in public, polite debate.

Read more

Last week, we discussed the difference between polite and impolite arguments. In public debate, there are rules around the types of arguments that are acceptable. Polite arguments are considered rational, and they usually show how certain policies lead to greater benefits (or fewer harms) in a tangible sense. “Policy X would lead to billions of dollars in savings, or enough money to treat thousands of cancer patients” is an example of a polite argument, which are almost exclusively based morally on the Care value (i.e. causing pain is wrong, especially to the vulnerable).

Although polite arguments may be dominant in educated society, they don’t always drive real decision-making. Instead, many people use other types of emotional appeals (i.e. impolite arguments) to guide their political beliefs. “Flag burning is an insult to the nation and should be punished” is an example of an impolite argument based on the Loyalty value (i.e. people have special moral responsibilities to in-group members). This argument is impolite because it is hard to show how the burning of a piece of cloth leads to tangible harms. Such an argument in unlikely to win a Munk debate, but it will certainly receive likes on social media.

Read more