[ren_engineer]

>You may not understand the forces that have led society to be organized the way that it is, but you should respect that sometimes the order of things reflects knowledge you may not have

sounds like Chesterton's fence to some degree

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Chesterton%27s_Fence

>In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

[timoth3y]

Hayek was talking about something more fundamental. There are countless of beliefs and behaviors we have to accept and internalize before we can even talk about changing a fence. "What is a fence? Can people respect access to property? Why can people own property? Why should we respect a fence?"

For the most part we do so unconsciously and unquestioningly.

We could not function in society if we stopped to question everything. Society is far too complex for any one person to understand "all of it."

The only reason society works at all is because we all tacitly agree to follow most of the rules without question. It's only when we shine a spotlight on a particular rule that we thin about it at all.

[csours]

The good form is protective, the bad form just normalizes something that is common at the time.

Is there any particular reason a woman cannot lead a prayer?

Is there any particular reason why we exchange work for money?

Is there any particular reason why not to eat pigs?

For each of those, the answer may be yes or no depending on your time and place.

The reason yes or the reason no may also be different.

[KeepFlying]

Except many of those do have reasons, those reasons are just outdated or immoral or context dependent.

The statement doesn't mean to keep the status quo, its meant to encourage tracking down the "why" before tossing things away. If a society says to not eat pigs you can't just decide to one day toss out the law. For all you know the pigs of that region are infected and will make you sick. Throwing away that status quo before tracking down why might end up making things worse.

[lazide]

Yup. The issue of course is that there are many false positives for ‘why’ that can also result in it being thrown away to great suffered - and many folks who frankly don’t have the time to spend.

Best one can do is where it clearly gets in the way of doing what YOU need to do, try to tear it down, but with one look over your shoulder to see if anyone is coming to get you for doing it.

If they do, they at least feel a need to keep it, even if nonsensical to you.

If no one does, then apparently no one remembers or cares enough to keep it there, so entropy wins and put it goes.

Might be a mistake, but might not be - and at least your problem will be easier to solve, which you concretely know and can experience, which is something.

[AussieWog93]

>For all you know the pigs of that region are infected and will make you sick.

Even if the pigs themselves were fine, perhaps there are other benefits that come from not eating pork.

I'm not an expert by any means, but I could definitely see how eating Kosher could have helped prop up Jewish businesses in the areas where they were a minority.

[esyir]

Isn't that the point though? The implied meaning of Chesterton's fence is simply: Understand the root motivation that belies a rule/norm/etc before you contest it.

[UncleMeat]

A big problem is that people don't agree on the root motivation.

I believe that policies against women being religious leaders is based in historical misogyny. But if you go ask people in these organizations, they'll say that women are fundamentally less capable of leading religious groups and that God made this rule for a reason.

What do you do then? I'm pretty darn sure that the stated reason is not actually true and bigots rarely say "the reason we are oppressing this group is because we hate them" but instead make up rationalizations for their policies. A bias towards keeping social systems and policies as long as there appears to be a justification for it enables oppressive systems to defend themselves more effectively.

[viro]

> they'll say that women are fundamentally less capable of leading religious groups and that God made this rule for a reason

Thats kinda of rather easily pointed out as misogyny tho. What makes them less capable?

[esyir]

I don't see how that's an issue.

You can take their argument at face value, then deconstruct it and refute piecemeal.

Rationalisations generally fall apart under further scrutiny, and if they don't, then maybe they aren't just rationalisions after all.

[codeisawesome]

> the bad form just normalizes something that is common at the time.

Exactly. I think there should be a blanket negative to customs, practices or systems that objectively cause harm. It would be reprehensible to see someone try to defend, say, Female Genital Mutilation… using “Chesterton’s Fence”. Just don’t fucking do it to people; stop doing it right now, the “why” might be for anthropologists to ponder at a later date.

[drewcoo]

Chesterton liked to be restricted, as his own adoption of Catholicism instead of looser Anglican faith attested. He also liked to restrict others, as with his abominable fence that we can't move or even stop talking about long after he's dead. I'm not philosophy kink shaming but it's just not right without consent.

[jhgb]

Why not just "genital mutilation"? You don't have to be that specific about it as if there were some acceptable cases of it.

[cik2e]

Ah yes, the curious culture of circumcision in the United States is a great example of something that could use a bit of reexamination.

Mr. Kellog, the Corn Flakes guy, in the late 1800s led a zealous crusade against masturbation. Eventually, he somehow managed to sell doctors and the public on circumcision as the answer to one of the hot-button social issues of the day: preventing teen boys from having the occasional wank. Freud would have likely deduced that Kellog himself was a hopeless and compulsive fapping addict.

All jokes aside, I have some friends who feel very resentful about not having had a choice in the matter. And other friends who strongly defend the practice, also likely due to not having had a choice in the matter.

My thinking is that American foreskins will remain on the chopping block until a majority of doctors change their views.

[confidantlake]

Society does not care as much about males?

[jhgb]

Just because "society" is doing something doesn't mean that you have to. Society lies, steals, murders, rapes, but I don't have to.

[confidantlake]

I agree with you. Fwiw I was speculating on the motive. I thought about it and that was honestly what I think is most likely. Society doesn't care as much about males so if you make it about females your argument looks stronger. And I think people do it for this reason without consciously realizing it.

[coldtea]

Yes, this is key: even the "bad examples" you gave, might have particular (non explicitly obvious) reasons behind them.

Things that are normalized because they're "common at the time" is not the only failure (false positive) mode.

Another is the (false negative) of "things denormalized because they're not popular anymore" (when they have utility that people can't readily see).