Even if they are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways, it doesn’t matter. It’s like a business owner in the 1960s saying “I would never segregate my customers based on race, but I don’t believe we have a civil rights issue in this country and no action should be taken about it and I’ll vote for politicians that oppose civil rights legislation.” They’re still wrong.
It is wrong for someone to act like a racist in their own life, even more racist than those opposing policy actions, and yet clamor for change by society at large. That appears a pretty clear example of hypocrisy. Whether AGW is real, has all the characteristics you think it has, and requires the policy solutions you think it requires, is a separate and complex debate.
Honestly, as hypocritical as he may be, the hypothetical racist guy calling for civil rights legislation is better in the long run than the guy that may not be racist at all but opposes civil rights legislation.
I disagree. And that’s not to say I oppose civil rights legislation.
I don’t see how you could disagree with that, especially seeing as how my example was focusing on civil rights in the 1960s, meaning the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. If a racist supports those, then he’s less damaging to our society in the long run then the kindhearted soul who opposes them.
There’s a lot to unpack. First, whether it is better for people to be virtuous in their own dealings or better to demand enforced virtue. I think the first so clearly better, especially in the long run.
I think the objection is that it isn’t realistic and that a great many people (too many people) aren’t going to be persuaded to act virtuously - except if threatened by legal repercussions. Lots to unpack here too about views of human nature and government.
A single kindhearted soul who opposes a law (presumably for a reason having nothing to do with liking racism, since he abhors it) won’t change the world anymore than a single racist who clamors for a law. A racist who clamors for an anti-racism law is better than a racist who doesn’t, but I do not think him better than the non-racist. People have an affect on the world through all their dealings, how they raise children and relate to others. I think a bunch of racists do more harm in the long run, whatever political positions they advocate.
Law has the power to persuade. And there you and I may find agreement. In the absence of many civil rights laws I think you’re right that racism would have persisted in many of its more virulent forms.
But I differentiate that from the idea that a racist who advocates political positions (any number of which may not be successful) is somehow better than a non-racist who fights racism in his daily life.