Poly is making me right wing

[Agathon]

BTW Ben, what's your view on the conservative war against women who wear paisley scarves and their concomitant support for Islamic terrorism?

[Ben Kenobi]

Not a secular ideology, which conservatism claims to be. If you want a religious justification for a political ideology then that's fair enough, but you won't find that many takers.

Most secular conservatives are either classical liberals or libertarians. I'd argue that the current 'conservative alliance' draws all three. Conservatives in history tend to be religious and pretty much all draw upon Thomism as a base for natural rights.

I don't think this critique has much merit. Not all folks who are religious are conservatives, but I think vice versa is true.

And I've explained before that this just dissolves into some form of utilitarianism or consequentialism.

How so? The argument is that a tradition was not arbitrary, and that it was set up that way for a reason. I don't see how that leads to utilitarianism at all. The argument isn't that society needs to be reformed. Conservatives argue that society will always need to be reformed in some way shape or form, but also argue that utopia is impossible.

It's an open question whether any particular tradition ought to be reformed or not

The consequence of the principle that society is fallen and imperfect is that it will always need improvement. The biggest question is what, and how ought it be reformed? Conservatives see tradition as something timeless, in that if it is right it will always be true. The way they can reconcile both of these is to say that reforms allow us to uncover truths about ourselves that were unknown before. This is the main contribution of science.

If conservatism is standing for tradition, then it's essentially a useless doctrine unless you want to completely eliminate reform, in which case it is useful but insane.

All a conservative says is that tradition is not arbitrary, and that there are solid reasons why things are done in a particular way. Changes thus have to jump both hurdles, will it improve things if it works, and secondly, what are the unintended consequences of the change?

This is empty. It makes empirical claims which are demonstrably false.

How so? You have to do better then that.

I'm a Plato expert, and this is a misuse of his philosophy. Do you want me to point you to the passage beloved of cultural conservatives where he says that men and women should be required to exercise together in the nude, or perhaps the rest of his radical politics, like the emancipation of women. Conservatives choosing Plato seems weird, since he is most well-known for his radical politics. Aristotle would be a better choice, although I think even he would like to smack today's conservatives in the mouth.

Then call it neoplatonism. I've not met a conservative out there who rejects the idea that this world is less 'real' then the ideas we have in our heads, and that much of society is striving to recreate those ideals in the best form we can.

Why would conservatives oppose the emancipation of women? They've been at the forefront of every major social change. It naturally follows from the principle that all people are equal that they ought to have equal rights, it's also a major portion of Thomism too.

This just resolves into some form of consequentialism, which then opens up the debate to empirical verification, which conservatism tends to lose. If you want to take this view to its logical conclusion, it would be a complete denial of scientific progress. It's just a celebration of ignorance. Again, in the real world, reforms have to be decided on a case by case basis.

Which is a decidedly conservative notion Agathon. That's what I have been trying to tell you from the very start.

[Agathon]

Why would conservatives oppose the emancipation of women? They've been at the forefront of every major social change.

You're a good guy Ben, which is why I won't put this in my sig.

Which is a decidedly conservative notion Agathon. That's what I have been trying to tell you from the very start.

Except conservatives get snippy when people start reforming things.

[Ben Kenobi]

Any political position or theory or ideology or whatever you want to call it has to answer simple questions like "What should we do?" or "Is our society a good society?"

1. This is why conservatives don't put out a manifesto. They argue that there really is no 'need' or pressing overarching goal. The 'revolution' isn't necessary or desired.

If I were to come up with an idea of what society ought to do or come out ahead and do, the question always comes back to several points.

1. Classical Liberals believe that we should increase freedom, and that society is better off when we initiate political reforms that increase the freedoms of society. Conservatives don't really have this drive. Their goals aren't to 'maximize happiness' so to speak as Mill would want, they don't care about these things.

2. Conservatives see politics as a necessary evil to mitigate the harm done by others. They seek to preserve the way of life of the past, and to make improvements of things that are bad on a case by case basis.

In order to do that it needs two things: (1) an axiology, or statement of fundamental value(s); and (2) some beliefs about the way the world is in order to apply those values.

I've given you all three, which you have basically pissed on. I'm sorry Agathon, you need to stop talking and start listening.

You would know about the answer to the society question if you had actually read my long post. I already said that conservatives see society as flawed and fundamentally evil.

[Ben Kenobi]

Except conservatives get snippy when people start reforming things.

Depends on the reform. Conservatives are all for reforms that they believe support their fundamental ideas about society.

I am willing to defend that claim that conservatives are at the forefront of every major social justice movement, why is it that territories like Wyoming would be the first to grant women the vote. Are you seriously telling me that those places were the Berkely of the times? How do you make sense of Dr. ML King who was a conservative who was the foremost advocate of equal rights for black people?

What about William Wilberforce who managed to ban the slave trade. You should look at his arguments agathon. He argues that scripture has stated that all men are equal, and that blacks ought to be considered equal people, and that slavery is offensive in a Christian society. You might be shocked, but you should read these things.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

1. This is why conservatives don't put out a manifesto. They argue that there really is no 'need' or pressing overarching goal. The 'revolution' isn't necessary or desired.

Having a coherent position doesn't commit you to a revolution. You could use it to justify the status quo, but you still need a position.

1. Classical Liberals believe that we should increase freedom, and that society is better off when we initiate political reforms that increase the freedoms of society. Conservatives don't really have this drive. Their goals aren't to 'maximize happiness' so to speak as Mill would want, they don't care about these things.

What do they care about?

2. Conservatives see politics as a necessary evil to mitigate the harm done by others. They seek to preserve the way of life of the past, and to make improvements of things that are bad on a case by case basis.

What kind of harm? Harm to welfare? To individual rights? If it's welfare, then axiologically they are just consequentialists. If it is individual rights, then they are axiologically classical liberals or Thomists or whatever.

What makes the way of life of the past a way worth preserving?

I've given you all three, which you have basically pissed on. I'm sorry Agathon, you need to stop talking and start listening.

You can do better, Ben. You gave me a collection of theories. As Plato would say, I don't want to know that there are lots of conservative theories, I want to know what makes them conservative.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Depends on the reform. Conservatives are all for reforms that they believe support their fundamental ideas about society.

But that's what I've been asking for.

I usually get "tradition should be preserved". Why? Because it's tradition? No. Well, because welfare will be improved if we do? Yes. Well, then shouldn't we decide this on a case by case basis? Yes? Then there's no point in appealing to tradition if we decide things on their individual merits, is there? Not when you put it like that.

[Krill]

Originally posted by Agathon


I didn't mean that. I meant broader problems with financialization of economies generally.

Fiar point. I can;t really comment, I've only really been listening to politics since when labour came to power, so I can only learn from biased sources about the Tories which makes the whole thing a complete waste of time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How do you make sense of Dr. ML King who was a conservative who was the foremost advocate of equal rights for black people?

You mean the Christian Socialist Martin Luther King?

You do realize there are plenty of Christian leftists, right? Obama being a good example of a current one, of course.

[Ben Kenobi]

BTW Ben, what's your view on the conservative war against women who wear paisley scarves and their concomitant support for Islamic terrorism?

Their opinion on Islam? It varies. There are some who say their social values are the same as ours, but the problem is that there are fundamental differences such as polygamy, differences in the concept of women, differences in how society wants to be ordered. The biggest difference is the use of violence to acheive political aims.

It's like if you take Islam and liberals together and squashed them you get Conservatives.

[Krill]

Guys, please don;t make this about religion, then it'll get broing...

[Ben Kenobi]

You mean the Christian Socialist Martin Luther King?

You do realize there are plenty of Christian leftists, right? Obama being a good example of a current one, of course.

I would say no. You can't be a sincere socialist and a Christian at the same time. Socialism is a materialist philosophy. I've never heard him referred to as a Christian socialist before.

You can be a leftist and a Christian though. There are plenty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I would say no. You can't be a sincere socialist and a Christian at the same time. Socialism is a materialist philosophy. I've never heard him referred to as a Christian socialist before.

You can be a leftist and a Christian though. There are plenty.

[q=Martin Luther King]You can't talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong… with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism[/q]
- November 14, 1966


And of course, people like J. Edgar Hoover thought King was a socialist, especially when he spoke out so forcefully against the Vietnam war (calling it a colonizing war) and the Poor People's Campaign.

He was most definately NOT a conservative... you can quibble over whether he was really a leftist or a socialist.

[Jon Miller]

Early Christianity was very socialist. Prior to Marx, most socialism was Christian in nature.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

I usually get "tradition should be preserved". Why?

That's not what I said. I said tradition isn't arbitrary. That's totally different then what you said. There is a purpose and a reason why things have been done this way.

Because it's tradition? No.

Do you even read my posts? Reforms are good. I gave the spiderweb analogy which is how conservatives see social reforms. The reason tradition ought to be preserved is because there is a reason behind them why things have been done that way for so long. Society has been shown that they work and work well.

Well, then shouldn't we decide this on a case by case basis?

I said this three times already.

Then there's no point in appealing to tradition if we decide things on their individual merits, is there? Not when you put it like that.

Sure there is. The default is tradition. Changes have to fit within the overall framework of society, hence the spiderweb post. Each case must be evaluated individually, based on how they fit with everything else. Make sense now?