Liberals vs Conservatives, Who's Smarter?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Agathon

Authoritarianism in modern societies is almost exclusively a right wing phenomenon.

If we leave out Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong-il??

[Ben Kenobi]

You said conservatives don't have an ideology. Would you agree with me that conservatives are anti-ideology, anti social liberalism?

I think they are opposed to the concept of an ideology yes. As for social liberalism, I think one can be conservative without supporting social conservativism (which is a subset), just as one can be a conservative without supporting a market economy.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

If we leave out Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong-il??

Three of those people are dead, and their ideas are no longer applicable in their countries.

Lastly, I don't think that Juche is recognizable as a left wing ideology, or a right wing ideology. Juche seems to me to be a form of religious belief (a particularly bad one).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


There's no middle only because he's so far over the horizon that he can't see it.

Depending on one's point of view, I'm either a liberal (to Berzerker, Ben, etc.) or a conservative (to Aggie, chegitz, etc.) So am I a liberal conservative or a conservative liberal?

I would actually call liberalism the "moderate" ideology, between conservatism and progressivism.

But when people say they are a moderate, that either means that they have some other theory, or more likely, they are just going with the flow.

I don't think the fact that I am by, the only measure ever taken, the most left wing and anti-authoritarian person on Apolyton makes any difference.

I am not a liberal, and I can't stand them either. But for the purposes of this debate "liberal" is defined as "left of conservative", which includes Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader, Subcomandante Marcos, and a load of other people who don't share that much in common, except the fact that they aren't conservatives.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I think they are opposed to the concept of an ideology yes. As for social liberalism, I think one can be conservative without supporting social conservativism (which is a subset), just as one can be a conservative without supporting a market economy.

But I'm not asking for some thick concept of ideology, just that conservatives observe the laws of logic and attempt to find some generality and consistency in their beliefs.

If you say they won't do that, then that is a prima facie admission of irrationality.

Oddly enough, I think I can come up with a better definition of conservatism than most of the conservatives here.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not really. The idea is as old as political philosophy.

That would surprise me to see the use of the term 'ideology' prior to the enlightenment.

It's not good just listing these things. A political ideology is not a stew. How do these things fit together?

Oh, I agree, but again, conservativism isn't an ideology, and that is one reason why.

Cough... Chrysippus and Zeno.... cough.

Locke cites Aquinas. The difference between the two is that one is god-given and the other is not. I don't deny that Aquinas got part of his inspiration from the Greeks, he was a Schlastic after all, but he was a synthesis of Greek and Christian thought on the matter.

But that's completely hopeless when we want to know what we are supposed to do.

And that's the point. Why, in politics must things be done, and a program advanced? Is there really anything in the political realm that must be done other then to maintain that which is there?

And what do we mean by "works"? Are you utilitarians?

Good question! It might be a better one to ask, what is the Good?

Works, as in, does it achieve that which was set out to do, the purpose in the first place. Say the responsibility of the government is to protect the nation from foreign invasion. When a foreign invasion succeeds then we can say that the current plan for national defense does not work. Conservatives, even if they support the military and the current plan, are willing to jettison the current plan, when there is proof that it does not accomplish that which was the original intent.

Same with the criminal justice system. Utilitarians believe that something works when it achieves the greatest good for the greatest number. Conservatives aren't that simple. First off, protecting the minority is a good thing, even if it means a sacrifice from the majority of the people. Secondly, even if the good end is acheived, how that end is acheived is important. If you could make everyone live forever, by killing an innocent, a utilitarian would say that it is good to kill someone for the better end, whereas a conservative would say that it is wrong to sacrifice the life of even one person, even if the end is perceived to be better.

I don't know if there is a concrete concept of the good among conservatives, the best I have seen is Virtue ethics, which you know a considerable amount.

This is not a distinctive feature of conservatism. Pretty much any political ideology believe this.

The term is pragmatism. Just because conservatives use the principle doesn't mean that conservatives are the only ones who are pragmatists.

But what was the reason? Surely, conservatives are going to agree that traditions sometimes need to be changed. But on what grounds do we decide when that is the case and when that is not the case. We can't appeal to tradition to decide that.

No, and that's a good question. Yes tradition should be changed, but the balance is always, why do we want to change tradition? Change for change's sake is not good. The assumption is that all other things being equal that we ought to support tradition. It's only if we can shift that to the other side can we say that something must be done. It also can't be 'something' but you have to have a clear plan, and think out why the change would be superior to the usual way of doing things.

For example, your plow keeps breaking down. The traditional way offers you no other means to change things, but it isn't working when you are unable to harvest enough to feed yourself. So when the plow breaks, it has to be fixed or improved. Two options are there, the first to fix up the plow, the second to try to make a better plow. The first is quicker the second will lead to a longer improvement. So the conservative won't adopt the second solution until the first one is shown not to work, in that the repairs do not fix the plow for long enough to be useful.

So now the farmer takes the second plan and comes up with a better design and manages to fix the plow. He harvests more in years previously, so we can say that the plow works, and a solution to the problem has been found.

This is not a distinctive feature of conservatism. Nor is it a prescriptive principle. It's also demonstrably false. One need only consider people's attitude towards severe punishments, or the history of etiquette to understand that.

Again, just because something is not restricted to conservatives, doesn't mean that it isn't part of conservative thought.

I honestly and sincerely believe that human nature is fixed and immutable, and I am unsurprised that you believe this to be false, because this is an essential difference between conservatives and liberals. Of course, some who are not conservatives also believe in this, but the question should be are there conservatives who reject the concept that human nature is immutable?

Etiquette is a verneer of civilization. I sincerely doubt that most people wear suits to church on sundays. If your best argument is the history of etiquette, then I think that people are not getting better over time.

There doesn't have to be a manifesto, just some indication of what it means to be a conservative. Some principle or set of principles that you all stand for.

I've listed a few that I believe all who call themselves conservative would agree upon.

1. human nature is immutable
2. tradition is not arbitrary but a significant guide to future actions.
3. The best action is the one that solves the problem. (pragmatism vs idealism)
4. Reason is an imperfect understanding of the world.

So you think it is OK for a political ideology to propose certain things for no reason at all...

I believe that reason is an incomplete understand of the world, and needs to be tempered.

This is descriptive. What is needed is prescriptive. Facts on their own don't tell us what to do. You know that Ben.

Ok, I'll rephrase that. "Reason is an imperfect understanding of the world."

And not to say what they are gives people even greater power, since one can substitute any arbitrary old thing. At least if it is written down, there are only a certain number of interpretations that are going to make sense.

If the rights are only there because they are written down, then they can be erased. You cannot enumerate rights on paper.

Then what's the point of being a conservative.

Why be a conservative? Good question.

First of all, the question should be rephrased as "who has the better understanding of the world". That gets us to principle number 5. Things can be true for everyone, and ought to be evaluated on that basis. I am conservative because I believe their understanding of the world to be superior to that of liberals.

One may as well have no political program at all. Although we often aren't in practice, it is completely fair to expect an individual to be as coherent as possible in their reasons for action. All this boils down to is asking that if someone prohibits doing X in one circumstance, that they prohibit it in all similar circumstances. That's just asking for consistency.

Oh I understand that but you have to understand that the last rule is the pragmatism rule. You have principles, but in the event of a conflict, go with what works, over the conflict of principles. Same with the idea, each congress will set the rules of their proceedings. A conservative won't respond the same way to the same situation every time. Say enemy X attacks us, and enemy Y attacks us. With enemy X we attack them back, and with enemy Y we pay them off. To a conservative, if we run into conflict between two principles, then sometimes we go with one and sometimes the other.

If someone says that doing X is the right thing to do in situation A, then you at least have to expect consistency from them. That is, if they say that doing X is wrong in situation B, they have to come up with a reason why B is different from A. Otherwise they are being illogical. A political philosophy is simply the result of the iteration of that process over all likely occurrences and distilled into common rules.

I see your principle, but people are not logical! Often the best solution is not necessarily the most logical or rational.

Conservatives are not immune from these types of questions, because nobody is. If you are going to claim that other people should act in a certain way, you have to accept that they will want to know why. Otherwise it doesn't come down to rational persuasion, but to rhetoric or force, and there we have moved beyond reason.

Oh, I agree completely. I'm not saying we are immune to these questions. Say for example, I believe all people who are married should stay married. The principle behind that is that conservatives believe that the married state between men and women is very productive, and beneficial to both the men and society. They also believe that marriages are a promise to one another and that a man and a woman are united together, and to tear them apart is no different then to rip off a limb. All of these are conservative arguments against divorce. Are they all logical?

That's not to say that we necessarily have to come up with infallible moral principles. It's perfectly acceptable, given human limitations, to come up with a single or series of defeasible principles that are not defeated in common practice.

Oh no! I think infalliable moral principles are an important part of conservativism. The hard part is enumerating what those principles are.

The problem with conservatism is that it appears to be a series of prejudices that appear to conflict with each other in many situations. That means that the solutions to conflicts are mostly arbitrary and decided on a whim. That's simply not good enough, since it embodies a refusal to acknowledge the laws of logic.

You are arguing against principle 4, that not everything is properly understood by Reason.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Agathon


Three of those people are dead, and their ideas are no longer applicable in their countries.

Really? tell that to the CPC or the KWP.

Your point that authoritarianism is usually of the right is clearly untenable.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

That would surprise me to see the use of the term 'ideology' prior to the enlightenment.

It would also surprise me to learn of the use of the term "rudder" in 5th century Athens, but the term "pedalion" sufficed to refer to the same thing.

Oh, I agree, but again, conservativism isn't an ideology, and that is one reason why.

It appears that the substance of conservatism grows rather thin.

Locke cites Aquinas. The difference between the two is that one is god-given and the other is not. I don't deny that Aquinas got part of his inspiration from the Greeks, he was a Schlastic after all, but he was a synthesis of Greek and Christian thought on the matter.

Stoicism inaugurates this tradition.

And that's the point. Why, in politics must things be done, and a program advanced? Is there really anything in the political realm that must be done other then to maintain that which is there?

"Or supposed not to do" is perfectly fine as well. Now answer the question.

Good question! It might be a better one to ask, what is the Good?

That is not the question I am asking. I am asking what conservatives think it is.

Works, as in, does it achieve that which was set out to do, the purpose in the first place. Say the responsibility of the government is to protect the nation from foreign invasion. When a foreign invasion succeeds then we can say that the current plan for national defense does not work. Conservatives, even if they support the military and the current plan, are willing to jettison the current plan, when there is proof that it does not accomplish that which was the original intent.

But that is not what conservatives say when they argue that traditions should be preserved as a general thesis. They don't mean that traditions work in this specific sense, but in some more general sense.

Same with the criminal justice system. Utilitarians believe that something works when it achieves the greatest good for the greatest number. Conservatives aren't that simple. First off, protecting the minority is a good thing, even if it means a sacrifice from the majority of the people.

Rule Utilitarians.... next question.

Secondly, even if the good end is acheived, how that end is acheived is important. If you could make everyone live forever, by killing an innocent, a utilitarian would say that it is good to kill someone for the better end, whereas a conservative would say that it is wrong to sacrifice the life of even one person, even if the end is perceived to be better.

Rule Utilitarians.... next question.

I don't know if there is a concrete concept of the good among conservatives, the best I have seen is Virtue ethics, which you know a considerable amount.

So if they have no concrete concept of the sort of society they want to achieve, it makes conservatism particularly useless, doesn't it.

The term is pragmatism. Just because conservatives use the principle doesn't mean that conservatives are the only ones who are pragmatists.

It's an empty term in this respect.

No, and that's a good question. Yes tradition should be changed, but the balance is always, why do we want to change tradition? Change for change's sake is not good.

No, but neither is stasis for stasis' sake.

The assumption is that all other things being equal that we ought to support tradition.

Why? This is the question you are refusing to answer. Because it would be better? Better according to what metric?

It's only if we can shift that to the other side can we say that something must be done. It also can't be 'something' but you have to have a clear plan, and think out why the change would be superior to the usual way of doing things.

Every ideology other than "leap before you look" does this, so its not a distinguishing mark of conservatism.

For example, your plow keeps breaking down. The traditional way offers you no other means to change things, but it isn't working when you are unable to harvest enough to feed yourself. So when the plow breaks, it has to be fixed or improved. Two options are there, the first to fix up the plow, the second to try to make a better plow. The first is quicker the second will lead to a longer improvement. So the conservative won't adopt the second solution until the first one is shown not to work, in that the repairs do not fix the plow for long enough to be useful.

Yes, but we know what the good is in this situation. We don't in the more general case.

Besides, only an idiot would always choose not to make a better plow. There is a cost benefit analysis to be conducted in each case. It's pointless and stupid to have a general rule of conservatism like this.

Again, just because something is not restricted to conservatives, doesn't mean that it isn't part of conservative thought.

Yes, but it won't serve as a distinguishing mark of conservatism with respect to other systems of thought, and that is what is sought here.

I honestly and sincerely believe that human nature is fixed and immutable, and I am unsurprised that you believe this to be false, because this is an essential difference between conservatives and liberals. Of course, some who are not conservatives also believe in this, but the question should be are there conservatives who reject the concept that human nature is immutable?

Etiquette is a verneer of civilization. I sincerely doubt that most people wear suits to church on sundays. If your best argument is the history of etiquette, then I think that people are not getting better over time.

People are a lot less savage and anti-social than they were 200 years ago. We simply do not need the harsh punishments we once had to keep people in line.

If the conservative position is that people always behave the same way, then it is falsified by history in a completely obvious way.

I've listed a few that I believe all who call themselves conservative would agree upon.

1. human nature is immutable

Obviously false in a both cultural and biological sense.

2. tradition is not arbitrary but a significant guide to future actions.

How do we know which parts of tradition are and which aren't? In other words, how do we know which parts are significant?

3. The best action is the one that solves the problem. (pragmatism vs idealism)

Everyone believes this, so what's the point?

4. Reason is an imperfect understanding of the world.

Perhaps, but it is the only understanding of the world. There is nothing else other than guessing games.

I believe that reason is an incomplete understand of the world, and needs to be tempered.

With what? Irrationality?

Ok, I'll rephrase that. "Reason is an imperfect understanding of the world."

Except that you weren't asked about the world in the first place. You were asked about consistency of belief, which is not knowledge of the world, but knowledge of the beliefs people use to represent it. These are subject to logical appraisal in that it is straightforwardly irrational to believe X and not X at the same time in the same respect, etc.

If the rights are only there because they are written down, then they can be erased. You cannot enumerate rights on paper.

Why not? How is it any different from enumerating them in speech. If I am deprived all forms of communication, how am I supposed to communicate the topic to anyone?

Oh I understand that but you have to understand that the last rule is the pragmatism rule. You have principles, but in the event of a conflict, go with what works, over the conflict of principles.

And this is the mistake you keep making with your talk about "pragmatism". What you are doing here in a conflict of principles is simply choosing what "works" in some defined sense as the principle you are going with. And you still haven't defined what "works" means here.

Same with the idea, each congress will set the rules of their proceedings. A conservative won't respond the same way to the same situation every time. Say enemy X attacks us, and enemy Y attacks us. With enemy X we attack them back, and with enemy Y we pay them off. To a conservative, if we run into conflict between two principles, then sometimes we go with one and sometimes the other.

Which demonstrates that conservatism is irrational. If we have a conflict of principles, then that is a sign to any rational person that one must be abandoned. That is the law of logic. There is no escape.

I see your principle, but people are not logical! Often the best solution is not necessarily the most logical or rational.

It doesn't matter whether people are logical. What matters is whether they ought to be logical. If they are trying to convince us of the intellectual merit of their worldview, then being logical is a sine qua non.

Oh, I agree completely. I'm not saying we are immune to these questions. Say for example, I believe all people who are married should stay married. The principle behind that is that conservatives believe that the married state between men and women is very productive, and beneficial to both the men and society.

Beneficial in what sense?

They also believe that marriages are a promise to one another and that a man and a woman are united together, and to tear them apart is no different then to rip off a limb. All of these are conservative arguments against divorce. Are they all logical?

It depends whether they conflict with other beliefs conservatives hold.

Oh no! I think infalliable moral principles are an important part of conservativism. The hard part is enumerating what those principles are.

THEN DO IT BOY!!!! .

The liberals do. What's so hard?

You are arguing against principle 4, that not everything is properly understood by Reason.

You aren't using reason in the sense I use it here, which is simple consistency of belief.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Really? tell that to the CPC or the KWP.

The CPC has to all intents and purposes abandoned Marxism, and in particular Mao's weird version of it. The KWP was recognizably Marxist for a long time under Kim Il Sung, but it isn't really clear what the present regime stands for other than preservation of the Kim dynasty by all means possible.

About the only real communist left is Fidel, and he is not particularly authoritarian, except when necessary by force of circumstance.

Your point that authoritarianism is usually of the right is clearly untenable.

I said in "modern societies". You show me a modern society full of authoritarian leftists and I might agree. North Korea for one is hardly a modern society.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


There's no middle only because he's so far over the horizon that he can't see it.

Depending on one's point of view, I'm either a liberal (to Berzerker, Ben, etc.) or a conservative (to Aggie, chegitz, etc.) So am I a liberal conservative or a conservative liberal?

I think the point is that there is an ongoing struggle against the conservatives and you need to fully join us in our fight.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Your point that authoritarianism is usually of the right is clearly untenable.

If the ruling class is left wing you will have left wing authoritarians. If the ruling class is right wing you will have right wing authoritarians.

[Kidlicious]

No conservatives will respond to the claim that if conservatives only desire change when something isn't working that it follows that they like war and poverty?

Some observations. Poor people work harder and need help from the church. Also, some poor people have to fight in wars, which also seems to create a need for the church for some. So it does seem to work for conservatives.

[Alexander's Horse]

oh give it up Agathon, honestly....

[Ben Kenobi]

No conservatives will respond to the claim that if conservatives only desire change when something isn't working that it follows that they like war and poverty?

Both are realities of life. I wouldn't say conservatives like war and poverty, but they don't believe that the state can eliminate poverty with other people's money, and that war will happen whether you like it or not.

If you define poverty as there being inequalities in wealth, then yes, some are poor and some will always be rich.

[Ben Kenobi]

It would also surprise me to learn of the use of the term "rudder" in 5th century Athens, but the term "pedalion" sufficed to refer to the same thing.

So what's the greek equivalent of 'ideology'? I'm rather curious.

It appears that the substance of conservatism grows rather thin.

Well that's not going to encourage conservatives to come out and help you.

Stoicism inaugurates this tradition.

Yes they do, but Aquinas borrows from both Greeks and Christians.

"Or supposed not to do" is perfectly fine as well. Now answer the question.

I would say that the best political theory of what ought to be done is the one saying the government ought to interfere as little as possible. Things like tariffs and national defense and highways all seem to me like pertinent responsibilities for a national government.

Of the rest I can't think of any other responsibilities that cannot be undertaken by the local governments.

That is not the question I am asking. I am asking what conservatives think it is.

First off I would say that the Good, is to allow man to be free to pursue their own desires. If you were to ask about moral improvement, I'd say that conservatives believe that making a good man is an important ideal, but that is achieved not through coercion but through the willing dedication of men to improve themselves.

But that is not what conservatives say when they argue that traditions should be preserved as a general thesis. They don't mean that traditions work in this specific sense, but in some more general sense.

Most believe that the traditions work in both senses, that it works in a specific sense, and in a general sense. When a tradition is no longer working in a specific sense, then the conservative is willing to change a tradition (in a manner consistant with their other traditions), in order to make improvements.

Rule Utilitarians.... next question.

Eh, I've heard of them. Some rules, you get asked a question as to what is the right answer, and the answer is whatever you decide. I'm not fond of utilitarianism.

So if they have no concrete concept of the sort of society they want to achieve, it makes conservatism particularly useless, doesn't it.

Well let's look at it. Conservatives believe human nature is immutable. They also believe that changing society to improve people will not happen.

So why again would conservatives want to 'achieve a particular society?' I would think they would rather allow people to do what they want, without interference, and allow the people to construct whatever society they want.

No, but neither is stasis for stasis' sake.

I've said there are certain circumstances where change is dictated and the status quo is untenable.

Why? This is the question you are refusing to answer. Because it would be better? Better according to what metric?

First off, the people who came before us have thought about all these questions as to what works best and how to organise society. These are what traditions are. They have worked in the past and work today. It's like a proven piece of machinery. It works fine, it does the job expected, so we do not need to make improvements even if the improvements would be positive, they are unwarranted.

Every ideology other than "leap before you look" does this, so its not a distinguishing mark of conservatism.

'Slow change' is not a feature of liberalism. Change because change is an essential feature of progress is a very liberal notion.

Yes, but we know what the good is in this situation. We don't in the more general case.

There is no greater good, agathon. Most situations are like this, there is a specific good which can be achieved.

Besides, only an idiot would always choose not to make a better plow. There is a cost benefit analysis to be conducted in each case. It's pointless and stupid to have a general rule of conservatism like this.

Look at the steps. Two choices. Why would a person choose to fix a recalcitrant plow over making a better one?

Yes, but it won't serve as a distinguishing mark of conservatism with respect to other systems of thought, and that is what is sought here.

It's like saying stew and soup are not distinguished because both contain water.

People are a lot less savage and anti-social than they were 200 years ago. We simply do not need the harsh punishments we once had to keep people in line.

Umm, yeah, I think when people fly planes into buildings and kill thousands of people at a clip that we are indeed more civilised the previous.

I think I've hit on a conservative principle because of how you are reacting to it.

How do we know which parts of tradition are and which aren't? In other words, how do we know which parts are significant?

That's a blanket statement. ALL tradition is significant, and NONE is arbitrary. Again I think I've hit on one peculiar trait.

Everyone believes this, so what's the point?

No, they don't. Many people are unwilling to put aside ideology to find a solution to the problem, which is why problems persist.

Perhaps, but it is the only understanding of the world. There is nothing else other than guessing games.

No, there are other things out there then just Reason.

With what? Irrationality?

Some things just don't make logical sense. Emotion perhaps? Spirituality? There are many things that don't fit into a logical framework that have significant impact on how people make decisions.

Except that you weren't asked about the world in the first place. You were asked about consistency of belief, which is not knowledge of the world, but knowledge of the beliefs people use to represent it. These are subject to logical appraisal in that it is straightforwardly irrational to believe X and not X at the same time in the same respect, etc.

Conservatives don't make a distinction between the two, concepts of how the world work are one and the same with the beliefs people use to represent the world. That's a very mordern distinction between the two. I guess we should say the beliefs that people have and use to represent the world ought to be consistant with the way the world works.

Why not? How is it any different from enumerating them in speech. If I am deprived all forms of communication, how am I supposed to communicate the topic to anyone?

First off, natural rights are possessed by everyone without the necessity of communication. It is enough that you know what your own rights are and what they should be. Conservatives would argue that you have a moral understanding of these, "we hold these truths to be self-evident" and do not need them to be taught in order to understand.

And this is the mistake you keep making with your talk about "pragmatism". What you are doing here in a conflict of principles is simply choosing what "works" in some defined sense as the principle you are going with. And you still haven't defined what "works" means here.

In the specific sense. There is no 'greater good.'

Which demonstrates that conservatism is irrational. If we have a conflict of principles, then that is a sign to any rational person that one must be abandoned. That is the law of logic. There is no escape.

Hmm, conservatives reject this principle that just because there is a conflict that one must be discarded over the other. It's entirely possible to have a no-win scenario where you must do as best as you can. If liberals believe that by setting up conflicts that they can force conservatives to discard their principles, then I find that a curious notion.

It doesn't matter whether people are logical. What matters is whether they ought to be logical. If they are trying to convince us of the intellectual merit of their worldview, then being logical is a sine qua non.

Again, "world is logical"

If we start from the preposition that the world is not logical, then the intellectual merit of the position ought to reject the principle that only logical things have merit.

Beneficial in what sense?

Men and women are happier married then not.

THEN DO IT BOY!!!! .

The liberals do. What's so hard?

I'm trying to enumerate principles that all conservatives agree upon. I know what I believe and what my solution for these questions would be, but I'm asking myself can it be said that every conservative does so?