On the further implications: it's true that the grounds of one's support for X will influence *what you'd have to change your mind about* in order to cease supporting X. But I don't know that there's any particular reason to expect instrumentally-based support to be noticeably less robust (or more likely to be subsequently abandoned) tha…
On the further implications: it's true that the grounds of one's support for X will influence *what you'd have to change your mind about* in order to cease supporting X. But I don't know that there's any particular reason to expect instrumentally-based support to be noticeably less robust (or more likely to be subsequently abandoned) than non-instrumentally-based support.
Compare: most people on earth do not, in fact, think that there are non-instrumental reasons to support free speech. So whether you support free speech on instrumental or non-instrumental grounds will alter your support of free speech, should you become convinced of the majority-held view *about the lack of an adequate non-instrumental basis*.
I guess if you thought it was normatively overdetermined -- that there were *both* instrumental and non-instrumental reasons -- that would be the *most* robust position, least susceptible to being overturned by later changes of mind. But I still don't think there's *much* reason for most people to care about any of this, because I expect *either* basis is sufficiently robust in practice. It seems very rare (as far as I can tell) for people to change their minds about these sorts of things.
On the further implications: it's true that the grounds of one's support for X will influence *what you'd have to change your mind about* in order to cease supporting X. But I don't know that there's any particular reason to expect instrumentally-based support to be noticeably less robust (or more likely to be subsequently abandoned) than non-instrumentally-based support.
Compare: most people on earth do not, in fact, think that there are non-instrumental reasons to support free speech. So whether you support free speech on instrumental or non-instrumental grounds will alter your support of free speech, should you become convinced of the majority-held view *about the lack of an adequate non-instrumental basis*.
I guess if you thought it was normatively overdetermined -- that there were *both* instrumental and non-instrumental reasons -- that would be the *most* robust position, least susceptible to being overturned by later changes of mind. But I still don't think there's *much* reason for most people to care about any of this, because I expect *either* basis is sufficiently robust in practice. It seems very rare (as far as I can tell) for people to change their minds about these sorts of things.