In light of Richard John Neuhaus’ comment about orthodoxy, I thought I would quote a bit from a piece I posted earlier from Jerry Muller on conservatism & orthodoxy:
The orthodox theoretician defends existing institutions and practices because they are metaphysically true: the truth proclaimed may be based on particular revelation or on natural laws purportedly accessible to all rational men. The conservative theoretician defends existing institutions above all because they are thought to have worked rather well and been conducive to human happiness. For the conservative, the historical survival of an institution or practice —be it marriage, monarchy, or the market—creates a prima facie case that it has served some human need. For conservatives, the very existence of institutions and traditions creates a presumption that they have served some useful function. In addition, conservatives tend to be acutely sensitive to the costs of radical change. Elimination or radical reconstruction of existing institutions may lead to harmful, unintended consequences, conservatives argue, because social practices are interlinked, such that eliminating one will have unanticipated negative effects on others….
Thus, although orthodox and conservative thinkers may sometimes reach common conclusions, they reach those conclusions by different intellectual routes.
[my emphases]
My own participation in Secular Right is understood in light of my perception that the “orthodox” outlook, broadly understood, has bled into modern American conservatism. Of course, orthodoxy is not simply a feature of conservatism, there are plenty of orthodoxies which are operationally accepted as if they were of metaphysical import on the American Left as well.
My personal experiences have taught me that large scale institutions are bureaucratic in nature, that bureaucracy is inherently dysfunctional. Thus, large scale institutions are inherently dysfunctional.
It is incomprehensible to me that people continue to subscribe to world-views that are based in the efficacy and, hence, value of large scale institutions.
Just to point out, I have no idea who Jerry Muller is, but per orthodoxy, “metaphysically true” necessarily leads to “worked rather well and been conducive to human happiness”, they’re joined at the hip, if one gets the truth correct, happiness follows.
if one gets the truth correct, happiness follows.
only in an deep philosophical sense, obviously. 90% of people think that they are “above average” in looks; the truth is that nearly half of these people are wrong. would they be happier with the truth?
p.s. as you know, i think most ‘metaphysical truths’ are of course nonsense (i.e., they lack substantive meaning, though they may be logical consistent with each other).
The conservative theoretician would have to defend slavery in the south on the basis of the reasons given above. But all traditions started out as radical revolutions. Our own American Revolution was a radical departure from existing traditions.
Metaphysics has been the biggest intellectual scam in world history. It has no empirical basis, just angels dancing on pins.
Our own American Revolution was a radical departure from existing traditions.
this is fair. though i think it should be normalized by keeping in mind that it barely predated the french revolution, which was even more radical (though i suppose since the french had the american precedent, while the americans had the precedent of the english civil war, with the killing of the king, and the glorious revolution, which opened the door for parliamentary supremacy).
i think most ‘metaphysical truths’ are of course nonsense
Is the statement “Stalin was evil” merely nonsense? I do not think so. While I am in agreement mostly with the positivistic urge, ordinary discussion often makes use of what could arguably be called “metaphysics”: not only in terms of values, but logic and mathematics. Where does a student look for empirical evidence when working out a tough algebra problem….? That’s something like Mind.
Hume also made a distinction between the axiomatic truths of mathematics and logic from matters of fact, natural science, physics, did he not. Many people hear “metaphysics” and think of some mystical or otherworldly ideas–at least Plato–but at the very least there are cognitive issues involved with knowledge beyond confirming fact-claims.
I’m sure DH thinks that people aren’t just speaking nonsense when they say that “such and such is evil”. But it doesn’t seem to me that you have to say (or that you ought to say) that moral claims are sensibly metaphysical.
Likewise, it’s not total nonsense to claim to have had a religious experience. -Something- happened. But, as a religious experience, it’s only meaningful in a phenomenological sense, though the claim also carries information that neuroscientists and psychologists could in principle use.
The conservative theoretician would have to defend slavery in the south on the basis of the reasons given above.
No, that’s not true at all. Most 19th century American conservatives did defend the institution, or minimize it, I grant, but it’s not necessary. The founding thinker of modern conservatism was Edmund Burke, who was a reformer himself. He argued that one need not be an ossified reactionary. Changes are possible, and often necessary, but they should be done within existing traditions and with as little disruption as possible.
Of course, that’s often easier said than done.
@J. To make the statement “Stalin was evil” stick in one aspect one must have the omniscience to say that the world, or Russia, did not need shaking up.
“Stalin was an a$$hole”, or “Stalin was a sociopath”, works quite well, but I do not find myself qualified to say that a$$holes and sociopaths do not serve some “purpose” beyond my ken, e.g., to keep things strirred up so that evolution might continue.
Please understand, I have known some sociopaths (one in prison and one “not guilty” come to mind) and I do not like them – at all. I do my best to avoid contact with the “not guilty” one (no problem with the other one), but “evil” is a metaphysical word to me. I’ve got no problem if either is described as “needin’ killin'”, but I can’t quite go with “evil”.
Maybe that’s just my Christian upbringing still hanging on.
The defining characteristic of a traditional institution is the ability to convince new humans to partake of it. Contributing to human happiness and well-being is strictly optional.
Fred:
Is you that Fred—“seasick in Ajijic” Fred?
“Stalin was an a$$hole”, or “Stalin was a sociopath”, works quite well, but I do not find myself qualified to say that a$$holes and sociopaths do not serve some “purpose” beyond my ken, e.g., to keep things strirred up so that evolution might continue.
While I understand that perspective, that’s in effect social Darwinism in action. Justice/ethics/history has become meaningless, and Stalin, Hitler, any sociopaths or tyrants you care to name are considered sort of rogue baboons, poorly conditioned, or not to one’s taste, etc. (really Hume’s view as well, re his comment on preferring that half the population of the world be destroyed instead of pricking his finger, vs ). Fine, but then at least be consistently amoral. Also, defining sociopathology or sanity presents problems (is it a matter of consensus? or just clinical psychologists….and do you want academic psychologists telling us what sane is, or isn’t? Gulags for all…).
@gene berman
Nope, different fred, I don’t get seasick, unless of course I have “overindulged” the night before going out.
@J.
@J.
I disagree, I think it’s more a matter of realizing how complex the world is and how hard it is to know what is truly good or evil.
As far as defining sociopathology, it may be difficult at the gray edges or as far as differentiating between one diagnosis and another, but if you knew the ones I know I don’t think you would see a problem with the diagnosis.
As far as “consistently amoral” is concerned, I’m not quite sure what you mean, but I will admit that I find that a very heavy dose of social Darwinism in morals. Very often “morals’ allow people to make the hard decisions that they do not otherwise have the guts to make.
Using the sociopaths of my acquaintance as an example, I have no difficulty saying that they need to be removed from society because of the harm they do, harm that has been adjudged “crime” (murder) in one case, and in the other was simply not sufficiently “proved” in court. Our modern penal system allows the murderer to be removed by incarceration, which is well and good as long as it is effective. If that option were not available, I would have no trouble voting for the death penalty for the murderer (which is the sentence he received, but it was set aside along with hundreds of others by the Supreme Court in 1972).
I do not see an inconsistency in making this judgment on “rational” grounds rather than because the Bible says murderers should be put to death or some other “moral” reason. I do, however see how hard it would be for someone unfamiliar with the man to otherwise make the same decision. My lack of reluctance comes from knowing the man was a “ticking bomb”, in and out of a mental hospital and probably guilty of two other deaths, before he finally committed the murders for which he was convicted. I worked in a business that served the public at that time and was frankly terrified every time the man came in the door, not without reason, as I had seen him commit acts of violence.
Murray Rothbard claimed the American “revolution” was radical, and I argued against that here. The Art of the Possible had a series of posts on the American Revolution vs Civil War. I’ll link to the last one, you can find the previous ones from there.
The conservative theoretician defends existing institutions above all because they are thought to have worked rather well and been conducive to human happiness.
The one problem I have with this notion is that it doesn’t answer the question of what to do with such institutions when they’ve become broken beyond repair, or simply lost relevance in the face of changing times, technological advances, etc. See the American auto industry or the MSM, and I’m sure you can come up with any number of other examples of this. In any case, it strikes me as a very short step from “X has worked rather well and been conducive to human happiness” to “Therefore we need to preserve/prop up/bail out X, whatever the cost in blood, treasure, liberty and/or human happiness may be.”
Forget “conservatism,” please. It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
“[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
@John Lofton, Recovering Republican
Which god? We have turned our backs on hundreds of gods. Which one is in a snit about it? ◄Dave►