Liberal vs Conservative Values

We often hear arguments about whether premarital sex is moral or not. I think this topic of argument is an interesting one to dissect; as it is a very good example of the clash between liberal and conservative values.

The liberal side of the argument cites the principle of freedom in supporting the legitimacy of sex before marriage, i.e. if both parties are adult and willing, and nobody is hurt by the act, why is it not moral? On the other hand the conservative side attacks on two fronts: the first being that religion and tradition forbid it, the second being that the risk of STDs, pregnancies, and distraction from study is a negative influence upon society.

If we analyze the conservative side carefully, the first reason can really be included under the second reason, for why does religion and tradition speak against premarital sex? Obviously because of the aforementioned practical risks of disease and unwanted babies. Religious doctrine is usually closely tied to practicality (in its time), for example the Jewish and Muslim edict against eating pork is due to the high risk of parasites in pig meat compared to other edible animals. We can see that most cultures traditionally place a higher value on female virginity compared to male; this is because if a woman had sex before or outside marriage, it is hard to ascertain the paternity of the baby she gives birth to, so the husband's family property might go to a genetic outsider. A man obviously cannot pass off a kid born outside as his wife's kid, so his virginity is of less importance. Therefore religion and tradition both speak from a practical viewpoint.

Let us generalize this to other points of dispute between liberal and conservative viewpoints:

A. Premarital sex - Liberals argue on the basis of freedom, conservatives argue on the risks of STDs, pregnancies, and historically the doubt of paternity.

B. Listening to parents - Liberals argue that children, once past the age of adulthood, should have complete freedom in deciding their future, as well as marriage partners, due to the fundamental right of liberty. Conservatives argue that parental opinion should be given more weight as parents have more experience and can often make better choices.

C. Gay marriage - Liberals argue that people are people regardless of gender, so everyone should have equal rights to get married. Conservatives argue that this is against religion and tradition, and that marriages are meant to be between men and women so that kids can be produced. I will elaborate on this later.

The common points between these three examples are that liberals argue based on absolute values such as freedom and equality, while conservatives argue based on practical points, probabilities. The probabilities are:

A. Higher chance of something bad happening. (STDs and pregnancies)
B. Same as above (if the kid pursues an art or musical career, it is statistically much more risky than pursuing a career in law or medicine)
C. A society which has more gay marriages will, on average, have fewer kids than one in which it is banned. In times where population growth is important, which was most of history, this is a negative.

Conservatives attempt to define a course which is "more likely to produce a stable outcome".

This is why liberals are stronger now than a hundred years ago: society is now much more prosperous and advanced, so we have more room to make mistakes. Two hundred years ago a women with a baby out of wedlock would be in a dreadful state with no man willing to marry and provide economically for her, but now women can work and support themselves, there is government welfare, and abortions can be obtained. With the modern economy, more economic opportunities abound so kids who do not listen to their parents and do something strange do not starve as easily, even without the support of the family. And lastly for gay marriage, with our current population levels we are not worrying about not having enough people to fight against bears or invading barbarians, hence the gradually relaxing attitude.

If we consider current attitudes towards homosexuality, it can be seen that urban areas tend to be more accepting of it that rural areas. This may not only reflect a more progressive mindset, but also that a higher population density affects our subconscious mind in the sense that for us city-dwellers, increasing population is fairly low down on our list of importance.

In other words, we now have more room to make mistakes, so the 'high probability of stability' path of conservatism can be increasingly forsaken for the 'absolute ideals' path of liberality. I predict that if times get tough, conservative values will again rise to greater importance.