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

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
So what DO they believe?

They believe that the institutions of our society, as they have existed for centuries (some more and some less) are on the whole good. They would want to avoid wholesale change for change's sake.

As for conservative principles of justice, in a North American setting, some of them would be equality before the law, the right to property, fundamental human rights that the state may not trample on, etc.

None of these require one to be religious to accept as good things for our society to preserve and to continue.

[Agathon]

They believe that the institutions of our society, as they have existed for centuries (some more and some less) are on the whole good. They would want to avoid wholesale change for change's sake.

This is an irrelevant question. As they say, they are on the whole good. But what makes them good, and what accounts for the exceptions. That is the principle they need to supply.

As for conservative principles of justice, in a North American setting, some of them would be equality before the law, the right to property, fundamental human rights that the state may not trample on, etc.

Yes, we know. But what is the grounding of such rights?

None of these require one to be religious to accept as good things for our society to preserve and to continue.

It does if you want to justify them in any meaningful sense. At least in every case I've ever heard.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
This is an irrelevant question. As they say, they are on the whole good. But what makes them good, and what accounts for the exceptions. That is the principle they need to supply.

Yes, we know. But what is the grounding of such rights?

Empiracism. They work. They should be continued.

It does if you want to justify them in any meaningful sense. At least in every case I've ever heard.

Tell me, are you religious? Do you require religion to believe in the right to a fair trial?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What's wrong with having your principle of justice rely on religious belief? The problem is that it's unprovable and relies on faith.

Not defending principles of justice totally based on religion, but doesn't Rawlsian theory have similar critiques . After all, you can't really prove what people in a veil of ignorance situation would agree to and the faith part of it is the equal, veil of ignorance decision making. That they would decide in such a way.

Also Why does it have to be equal? Why is the veil important (ie, why can't individual interests be important)? What does Rawls' experiment have to do with reality in any way?

You need more to simply discredit religion based justice theories than they rely on faith and are unprovable .

[notyoueither]

I should say that I can see the benefits of both Conservatism and Liberalism. If it is possible, I would be both. Our society is fundamentally sound and therefore the principles on which it is built should be preserved. However, there are ways that we could improve. Therefore we should make incremental improvements so long as they can be reconciled with what has been good in the past.

For instance, gay rights. To me this is simply the extention of the principles our society is built on to a newly recognised group. To me, being in favour of gay marriage is not inconsistent with Conservatism, but then again my Conservatism has nothing to do with religion.

[Agathon]

Empiracism. They work. They should be continued.

Um. Science can't discover values NYE. If it could, we wouldn't disagree about them.

Tell me, are you religious? Do you require religion to believe in the right to a fair trial?

Way to miss the point there...

After all, you can't really prove what people in a veil of ignorance situation would agree to and the faith part of it is the equal, veil of ignorance decision making. That they would decide in such a way.

Also Why does it have to be equal? Why is the veil important (ie, why can't individual interests be important)? What does Rawls' experiment have to do with reality in any way?

It has to be equal because Rawls' thought experiment is simply a picturesque way of stating the Kantian categorical imperative: treat others as ends in themselves rather than means to your own ends. We can understand this by imagining ourselves in the shoes of others. If I put myself in anothers shoes, I adopt the point of view of someone as an end in themselves.

You need more to simply discredit religion based justice theories than they rely on faith and are unprovable

Oh.. there's more. They are absurd.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
Um. Science can't discover values NYE. If it could, we wouldn't disagree about them.

One may certainly observe that the principles of our society have led to a good society and conclude that we should therefore preserve those principles.

Feel free to switch in values for principles if you wish. It does not change the fact that you are asking what Conservatism is based on, and I am giving you an answer.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Rawls' thought experiment is simply a picturesque way of stating the Kantian categorical imperative: treat others as ends in themselves rather than means to your own ends. We can understand this by imagining ourselves in the shoes of others. If I put myself in anothers shoes, I adopt the point of view of someone as an end in themselves.

While that is nice and all, how is it provable? You have to take Rawls on faith that this is how people would react. Maybe they'd take another course of action?

Secondly, yes, it is a thought experiment, but you have to take it on faith that it has any connection to reality.

Like my prof said, in order for Rawl's Theory of Justice to work for you, you have to 'buy' the experiment.

[Dis]

eye for an eye justice

[Agathon]

One may certainly observe that the principles of our society have led to a good society and conclude that we should therefore preserve those principles.

Without some idea of what counts as good, you can't make this judgement. And if you give another laundry list, the original question arises, what makes these things good?

While that is nice and all, how is it provable? You have to take Rawls on faith that this is how people would react. Maybe they'd take another course of action?

Secondly, yes, it is a thought experiment, but you have to take it on faith that it has any connection to reality.

Like my prof said, in order for Rawl's Theory of Justice to work for you, you have to 'buy' the experiment.

Then your prof doesn't understand the experiment. It's a picturesque way of illustrating the Kantian principle (although Kant would disagree with his method of application).

Secondly, yes, it is a thought experiment, but you have to take it on faith that it has any connection to reality.

You don't have to take it on faith at all. Fundamental moral principles are not contingent, so they operate in every logically possible situation, including the veil of ignorance.

Fundamental moral principles are not tied to contingent circumstance. If they are, they are merely hypothetical imperatives, and you generate a regress.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then your prof doesn't understand the experiment. It's a picturesque way of illustrating the Kantian principle (although Kant would disagree with his method of application).

I think he understands it very well. If you don't buy into the precepts, then you won't buy into his conclusion. It's a quite obvious statement.

You don't have to take it on faith at all. Fundamental moral principles are not contingent, so they operate in every logically possible situation, including the veil of ignorance.

Fundamental moral principles are not tied to contingent circumstance. If they are, they are merely hypothetical imperatives, and you generate a regress.

In the end a fundamental moral principle has to have some connection to reality or else it ends up being useless, since morals are how we should live.

[Agathon]

I think he understands it very well. If you don't buy into the precepts, then you won't buy into his conclusion. It's a quite obvious statement.

Not really. Arguing against the Kantian principle is not arguing against Rawls. A separate argument is required. Your prof seems like a dime store sceptic to me.

In the end a fundamental moral principle has to have some connection to reality or else it ends up being useless, since morals are how we should live.

It has to have some application to reality, but this is not the same as being derived from experience or being contingent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's a HELL of a Double Post .

[Agathon]

Fixed.

The ****ing forums are acting strange, that is not what I'd typed. This is the second time it has happened today.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
Without some idea of what counts as good, you can't make this judgement. And if you give another laundry list, the original question arises, what makes these things good?

I suppose that most Conservatives would say that order, prosperity, and freedom are good things.

They are good because people have decided that they are. Perhaps you're looking for an ontological explanation. I'm sure you can find the explanation in one of your books somewhere. After all, Conservatives seek to preserve the legacy of our society, and philosophy from Plato to Kant is part of that.