The Chesterton’s Fence argument is an argument against progressive social changes, no?

keiferski 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No, it’s an argument against removing rules / making changes without deeply understanding why those rules exist in the first place, and what might happen when they are removed.

It’s perfectly fine to be for progressive social changes, as long as those criteria are met.

I’d call that a pragmatic approach, not a conservative one.

▲

tbrownaw 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> I’d call that a pragmatic approach, not a conservative one.

The other meaning of "conservative", the one that's opposite "reckless".

It should in theory be possible to take a conservative approach to being progressive.

	▲	giantg2 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"It should in theory be possible to take a conservative approach to being progressive" That's likely how most of the middle see themselves (if not in those words) - open to new changes but only if they're fully understood and not drastic.

▲

xboxnolifes 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No, sometimes social change is putting up a fence. And if social change is sometimes putting up fences, that would mean that not all fences are supposed to be torn down.

	▲	kelipso 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Chesterton’s fence has a specific definition. It’s not supposed to mean restrictions on social conduct or mores like you seem to be implying.