titus oates wrote:I may be wrong, but conservatism seems to me to be more of a sentiment than a reasoned political position. for example, there doesnt seem to be a logical reason to oppose gay marriage, other than an emotional preference for how things normally are. this may be an excessively reductionist explanation for conservative opinion, but why should we preserve institutions merely because of tradition? it seems pretty arbitrary. those who have arrived at conservatism by rational contemplation please answer.
Well...you aren't wrong. Your sense of reason leads you to ask the question, "what is the justification for conservatism". The bottom line is that there is no rational justification for it. Conservatism is a theory of rationality, which cannot justify itself as true. That doesn't stop them from trying. They're all justificationists. I know that sounds absolutist and an application of Dicto Simpliciter, but when you hold a theory of rationality or ideology you end up having to justify it to maintain it. Conservatism as a theory of rationality cannot withstand criticism. I suppose this is why they are always on the attack. They don’t want to be put on the defense at all. It would force them to justify their positions which they can’t do.
Conservatives are great believers. Rush Limbaugh called Republicans the Party of believers. But beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (usually the source of the belief in question) and this justification by an appropriate authority makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it. However this is a requirement that can never be adequetly met due to the problem of validation or the dilemma of infinite regress vs. dogmatism.”
As long as the conservative holds onto his position dogmatically he will be subject to continued appeals to authority to justify his position. This can be taken into what is called “infinite regress”. There is no escape other than through the use of circular reasoning which is a logical fallacy and no escape at all. It amounts to hiding ones head in the sand, and thinking that nobody can see him. So, ultimately there is no escape.
He's a foundationalist, and requires a basis for his conservatism. But by admitting that things require a base one has to ask what is the basis for the basis? A traditional rationalist, which is what a conservative is, will hold a theory of rationality. He uses that theory to justify every aspect of his life; his religious beliefs, his political beliefs, his views on race…everything. And that theory is provided for him by an authority which may be the church or his religion. His political views are provided for him by an authority which does the heavy lifting of thinking. It gives him his talking points, and assures him that he is correct in adopting them. He becomes a “ditto head”, and accepts positions without any critical thinking. A traditional rationalist need only apply his theory of rationality to whatever assertion is in question. As such, he need never distinguish between truth and falsity. His theory does that for him. But again, what is the theory based on...other than itself?
Situationally, conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology or theory of rationality in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values.
The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict.
It relies on appeals to tradition and appeals to authority to justify itself. The problem is that the ideology uses itself to justify itself. It's a circular argument. Holding on to circular reasoning is irrational, and the question is why would we want irrational people running our government?
- By Potemkin
- By Puffer Fish