Conservative principle(s) of Justice. Are there any?

[Ben Kenobi]

I offer a different argument.

Liberal principles of justice are fundamentally incoherent insofar as they remove religion from their basis.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
I'd accept that conservatives believe these things

Uhhh... but many conservatives don't... so you would be wrong

[Agathon]

Liberal principles of justice are fundamentally incoherent insofar as they remove religion from their basis.

If that were true, then all principles of justice would be incoherent as all would rely on faith. If you want to go down that road, that's fine. But that is a vote for moral skepticism rather than a defence of conservatism, which is what the original question asked for.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm asking conservatives to justify their moral beliefs in a coherent way that cannot be found to rely on religion.

Why?

Religion, is coherent, even if it is unproveable by empirical means.

[Ted Striker]

So what DO they believe?

[Agathon]

Uhhh... but many conservatives don't... so you would be wrong.

It doesn't matter. These are particular claims, I want general principles. People can sometimes differ over the moves from the general to the specific for empirical reasons.

I want general principle(s).

[Patroklos]

For the record the standard justification of Liberalism is Rawls' theory or some variant of it like Dworkinian equality.

Your gods, you pagan

Just because you don't call your blind faith religion doesn't mean you don't belive in said texts for the same reason. You read those books and they made sence to you, some read the bible and it makes sence to them.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then the first question you have to ask, is what is a fundemental principle of conservativism?

[Agathon]

Religion, is coherent, even if it is unproveable by empirical means.

Then it is useless. One can construct any number of theories which are logically coherent, but give us no reason to believe them. Coherence is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition in this case.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why?

Religion, is coherent, even if it is unproveable by empirical means.

Doesn't coherence require:

a) internal consistency?
b) external consistency (not violating observable facts) ?

Which religion do you have in mind? Theravada Buddhism?

[Ned]

Rawl's theory of justice is socialism, not liberalism, in that Rawl's defines justice in terms of equal advantages. He then says that unequal wealth is inherently unjust because it advantages the wealthy. To a socialist (like Al Gore), inequality of wealth is per se cruel and unjust without more.

True liberalism teaches free enterprise, equal opportunity and the ability for anyone to succeed and become wealthy regardless from where they started. It arose out of a feudal order that accorded social status and wealth based on birth, not merit. Liberalism at its core founds its belief on the equality of all before the law, allowing individuals to rise in social status and wealth according to merit.

Today's true liberals in the United States are known as conservatives. American "liberals" have become socialists.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Why?

Religion, is coherent, even if it is unproveable by empirical means.

from Merriam Webster

coherent - 1 a : logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated :

if anything could be described as INCOHERENT, it would be religion Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

Suppose one considers my view to be representative of Conservativism,

Striker's list:

"Punitive law enforcement is more effective than reform"

I'll say no. I favour rehabilitation over punishment.

"Everyone has the right to own a gun"

Again, I'll say no. There may be very good reasons to require training of eveyone who owns a gun.

"Abortion is immoral"

I'll agree with this one.

"Religion (as long as it is Christian) is an acceptable influence on government and schools"

All religions ought to have an influence. To favour only Christian influence, is to violate the establishment clause.

So no.

"Big government (almost always referring to welfare programs) is bad"

Agreed.

"Military means to accomplish end goals is acceptable"

And I disagree. I prefer isolation to intervention.

"Foreign treaties and interests always take a back to our own interests in the international world."

This I agree with.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
- Foreign treaties and interests always take a back to our own interests in the international world

You say this as if it's a bad thing.

[Agathon]

Just because you don't call your blind faith religion doesn't mean you don't belive in said texts for the same reason. You read those books and they made sence to you, some read the bible and it makes sence to them.

That's not much of an argument. Down that road lies relativism, which is useless in these debates.

Someone might read a KKK pamphlet and have it make sense to them. Does that mean they are right? No. Believing does not make it so.

But I still want someone to come up with a simple principle that captures the moral essence of conservatism.

For example, Egalitarians think that no one's welfare is more significant than anyone else's. That's a simple principle from which they derive their views on distributive justice.