You’re right—it was a caricature, and it wasn’t entirely fair.
I think your view of compromise is accurate. But I want to complicate it a little. It may be true that there’s a carefully balanced compromise, making everyone unhappy by the same amount, such that making a change really would make the system fall apart, with possibly disastrous results. The first thing I want to say is that someone who sees this “balance” may make a sort of mental shorthand and call it a good solution or a solved problem, and lose the acute awareness of grievance from the various unhappy parties. The moderate may eventually cease to recognize the grievances as even slightly legitimate. (I have seen this happen.) And this is a genuine fallacy.
The second thing I want to say is that the state of slavery in the 1850′s was also a delicately balanced compromise, and disturbing it did have disastrous results. I’m not saying this to discredit your argument with a smear. My point is this: it may add zero new information to know that some people are unhappy with the status quo, but it does add information to know what their reasoning is for being unhappy. The content of abolitionist propaganda, the strength of its arguments as compared to those of pro-slavery propaganda, would sway a Martian observer trying to decide what he thought about slavery. If the Martian had only been allowed to see election numbers, poll results, legislative deliberations, and so on, he might have had a different opinion than if he had also been shown a few issues of The Liberator. In other words: the structure of a compromise is not enough to know whether you support it or not.
The content of abolitionist propaganda, the strength of its arguments as compared to those of pro-slavery propaganda, would sway a Martian observer trying to decide what he thought about slavery.
This is so not a debate I’d want a Martian to adjudicate. How would a Martian evaluate questions like this:
Does the Bible support slavery or abolitionism?
Does slavery agree or disagree with the inherent rights of man?
I guess a Martian could try to evaluate some empirical questions that may be relevant:
Do the black people have a natural slave mentality? More generally: Are there any significant biological cognitive differences between blacks and whites?
Will abolition lead to a slippery slope ending in full equality and integration of black and white people, including intermarriage?
But I fear the Martians will bring their own criteria into play. Those might be anything. Say:
Since we Martians have a natural slave caste doesn’t it seem likely that the humans do too?
Would the abolition of slavery ultimately increase or decrease the number of paperclips?
The second thing I want to say is that the state of slavery in the 1850′s was also a delicately balanced compromise, and disturbing it did have disastrous results. I’m not saying this to discredit your argument with a smear.
Heh, I was actually considering that exact example while writing my post, but considered it was already getting too long—so I don’t see that as a smear :)
I’m not aiming for a Fully General Counterargument against disturbing the status quo, just presenting some more refined reasons moderates could have for supporting it. And slavery in the 19th century is a good example of a case where (as you say) those arguments did hold, but things were still worth changing.
You’re right—it was a caricature, and it wasn’t entirely fair.
I think your view of compromise is accurate.
But I want to complicate it a little. It may be true that there’s a carefully balanced compromise, making everyone unhappy by the same amount, such that making a change really would make the system fall apart, with possibly disastrous results. The first thing I want to say is that someone who sees this “balance” may make a sort of mental shorthand and call it a good solution or a solved problem, and lose the acute awareness of grievance from the various unhappy parties. The moderate may eventually cease to recognize the grievances as even slightly legitimate. (I have seen this happen.) And this is a genuine fallacy.
The second thing I want to say is that the state of slavery in the 1850′s was also a delicately balanced compromise, and disturbing it did have disastrous results. I’m not saying this to discredit your argument with a smear. My point is this: it may add zero new information to know that some people are unhappy with the status quo, but it does add information to know what their reasoning is for being unhappy. The content of abolitionist propaganda, the strength of its arguments as compared to those of pro-slavery propaganda, would sway a Martian observer trying to decide what he thought about slavery. If the Martian had only been allowed to see election numbers, poll results, legislative deliberations, and so on, he might have had a different opinion than if he had also been shown a few issues of The Liberator. In other words: the structure of a compromise is not enough to know whether you support it or not.
This is so not a debate I’d want a Martian to adjudicate. How would a Martian evaluate questions like this:
Does the Bible support slavery or abolitionism?
Does slavery agree or disagree with the inherent rights of man?
I guess a Martian could try to evaluate some empirical questions that may be relevant:
Do the black people have a natural slave mentality? More generally: Are there any significant biological cognitive differences between blacks and whites?
Will abolition lead to a slippery slope ending in full equality and integration of black and white people, including intermarriage?
But I fear the Martians will bring their own criteria into play. Those might be anything. Say:
Since we Martians have a natural slave caste doesn’t it seem likely that the humans do too?
Would the abolition of slavery ultimately increase or decrease the number of paperclips?
Heh, I was actually considering that exact example while writing my post, but considered it was already getting too long—so I don’t see that as a smear :)
I’m not aiming for a Fully General Counterargument against disturbing the status quo, just presenting some more refined reasons moderates could have for supporting it. And slavery in the 19th century is a good example of a case where (as you say) those arguments did hold, but things were still worth changing.