Sofia's latest post on her brand of conservatism highlights an interesting point. She identifies her struggle of resolving typical traditional values -- or perhaps more widely what she ideally may want to typically support -- against the way she lives. Despite coming from different perspectives, I identify perfectly with the sentiment she makes using the comparison of chastity: trapped between two extremes and not truly belonging to either. We must invent a middle ground.

This is something we all go through. How can we support measures that would disadvantage us in any way? How can a person who's tried cannabis in their youth and come to no harm advocate harsh measures which would punish those in similar situations?

If I didn't give a thought to it, I naturally may want softer policies on immigration for my own self-interests. Most often people do this and brainwash themselves, believing what's good for them is good for everyone. They deny evidence to the contrary. They fail to recognise the wider social implications and that these implications will have an effect on their very own future and present.

When we advocate for change to the status quo, this is often a crisis you have to face: you usually have benefited in some way from what you seek to change. If you're old enough, you may even have supported a measure that you later disagree with.

Be honest to yourself about the issues you face. Be open to the idea that you may be wrong. Acknowledge that you may be advocating something simply in your own interests, rather than as part of a coherent ethical system. Who knows? You may even choose to occasionally decide that what's more important to mankind or its planet is more important than you. Humans are much more altruistic than the cynicists in us gives them credit for.