The article discusses the inconsistency with which conservatives and liberals approach the issues of freedom and regulation, particularly in the context of abortion. Conservatives often oppose regulations that protect health and safety, favoring economic benefits over potential harms, such as pollution. Conversely, liberals tend to support protections but also uphold the right to abortion. The piece emphasizes the need for a more consistent moral framework in discussing liberty and regulation, as many positions are driven more by feelings than by principles.
Pushing aside the rhetoric, an objective look at the stereotypical conservative stance on protective regulation is that they are willing to tolerate harms, such as the deaths of children from pollution, as part of cost of business.
This is a utilitarian/consequentialist approach: a certain amount of harm (pollution, safety issues, health problems, etc.) is an acceptable price to pay for economic advantages.
Collection
[
|
...
]