What is Conservatism? (Political Philosophy)
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2022
- This video examines the philosophical underpinnings of conservatism, what it really means to be conservative in the philosophical sense, and some objections to conservatism.
This series examines five positions in political philosophy and discusses whether US politicians that claim that label actually support policies that are in line with the underlying philosophy. The series is brought to you by our new book: Are All Lives Equal? (#PoliticalPhilosophy #Conservative)
Learn more about the book: www.carneades.org/are-all-liv...
Buy the book now on Amazon: www.amazon.com/dp/B0B4SJH2Q9
Sponsors: NBA_Ruby, Antybodi, Federico Galvão, Mike Gloudemans, Andrew Sullivan, Eugene SY, Tyler James, Antoinemp1, Dennis Sexton, Joao Sa, Joshua Furman, Multitude, Ploney, Avatar, Diéssica, GhostlyYorick, Hendrick McDonald, horace chan, Will DeRousse, Star Gazer, Paul Linkogle, Julian Seidl, Doǧan Çetin, and Daniel West. Thanks for your support on Patreon! If you want to become a patron, follow this link: / carneades
Here are some videos you might enjoy:
The 100 Days of Logic ( • 100 Days of Logic (Full) )
History of Philosophy ( • Four Weeks of Famous P... )
Ancient Philosophers & Zeno’s Paradoxes ( • Schools of Ancient Gre... )
ExPhi Experimental Philosophy ( / @experimentalphilosoph... )
Map of Philosophy ( • The Map Of Philosophy )
More videos with Carneades ( / @carneadesofcyrene )
Philosophy by Topic:
Epistemology: • Epistemology
Metaphysics: • Metaphysics
Political Philosophy: • Political Philosophy
Philosophy of Religion: • Philosophy of Religion
Ancient Philosophy: • Ancient Philosophy
Philosophy of Science: • Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Language: • Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Art/Aesthetics: • Philosophy of Art (Aes...
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/store/carneade...
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Collier-MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Dictionary of Continental Philosophy, and more!
It seems conservatism is a position taken relative to a particular prevailing state of affairs or status quo, whereas liberalism focusses on all citizens as free and equal and the pursuit of fairness. So it would seem to follow that in a particular case conservatism could well embrace a system which is essentially liberal.
Yes, in a parallel world.
Though I agree to an extend, I can't help but feel that cosveratism also encourages causion where as liberals take more risk. Both need eachother.
@@Animusical216 balance fallacy
As an American it's jarring to hear a definition of Conservatism that includes respect for empirical... anything.
Pray tell, what's a woman?
@Inquisitive Gen Z dude i wasn't asking u. Dont be dumb. I was asking the original commenter
@Inquisitive Gen Z no problem
@Inquisitive Gen Z So, you're obviously one of those that have no respect for empirical ... anything, because science clearly states that your view about sex and gender is wrong.
@Inquisitive Gen Z Your ideology isn't science. Go look at *actual* science if you don't believe me, not just what someone tells you about it. Google Scholar may be a good place to start.
From this video, it seems like American conservatism isn't entirely conservative, but is conservatism with a little bit of classical liberal philosophy mixed into it.
I´m a more conservativ german and i really liked your video. You described conservatism in my opinion very good.
Greetings from Germany
Why did half of this video show objections while only 1/4 of the ”What is Liberalism” showed objections?
Because there are and have been more objections to conservatism over time. In general it is a less clearly defined or explicitly justified position. I attempted to give it a philosophical justification, which is more than most tertiary sources do, many of which dismiss it as unjustified propaganda based solely in the desire of those who have power to retain power. I think there is more there, and a real position can be made, but that does not mean it does not have many harsh critics.
Opposition to centrally-directed change plus support of existing hierarchies seems contradictory, because the center of power is the same thing as the top of the hierarchy. Contrapositively, non-central, grass-roots movements are movements of, by, and for those at the bottom of the hierarchy. So if the conservative wants the existing power structure to remain, then they must want the existing centers of power to do whatever they will; conversely, if they want everything grass-roots and bottom-up, then if the people en masse want change, the 'conservative' in that sense should support that.
There is a consistent view of just general caution toward change, which seems like the most straightforward application of the word "conservative". That could be consistently paired with a grassroots, bottom-up approach, but that would require that there not be hierarchies above those grass roots keeping the little people in their place. Or it could instead be consistently paired with a hierarchical, centralized-power approach, but that would suppress any grass-roots movements that wanted to try things contrary to how the people on top want things to be.
The only way I can think to make consistent sense of nominally being both anti-centrality and pro-hierarchy is in a context where there is some imagined 'rightful hierarchy' of some minority who 'deserve' power over others, but which is not in fact the actual de facto power hierarchy supported and accepted by the people at large (which is the ultimate source of all political power), and the 'conservative' in this sense supports the former over the latter... which actually makes *them* the ones trying to force change from a central fulcrum (to a state where "the right people" are at the top of the hierarchy) against a popular grassroots movement that is actually currently in power.
Change in conservatism is neither top down or bottom up in the way assumed. It simply favours organic, evolved change rather than social engineering on a massive scale, wiping slates clean (of custom and norms, i.e. institutions) based on an individual's intellectual views or ideals, theories, to be (potentially) left with nothing that forms a stable society, or law and order, or on the smaller scale simply failing in a policy that is never able to be corrected because of the fervour of the intellectualism that put it there and keeps it there irrespective of reality. Or every single dictator ever. Conservatism is very sceptical of rationalism, so it altogether denies the ability to do this successfully. It denies the ability for engineering to create institutions as well, since institutions are custom evolved over time.
Also, hierarchy does not require centralised modern states. That social engineering was not possible in pre-modern European societies yet they are very hierarchical. Hierarchy is not more important than anything else to conservatism, it's simply part of what makes a given society work, that stripping it out on a crusade against it is causes society to fail, destruction on the altar of an idea without appreciating the complexity and practical reality of an organism like a society, which is a bad thing since it causes mass suffering and instability. Not that a society couldn't change towards an ideal organically, since that society and every intermediary society by virtue of actually existing in practice also works. Remember that almost all political philosophies also concede to hierarchy.
Thank you
Lots of fallacies are made by those deploying political 'isms' in set theoretic terms. Thanks
Glitched audio at 9:25 you should re-edit that.
Not gonna lie, you got me to watch the video by having philosophy in your title and having a bust in your profile picture 😁
That's how I draw you in. :)
Greatings from Mexico.
You need to redo this one with more steel man.
Interesting take. A conservative is one who asks "what ought we to conserve"? Which is the position of Burke and Kirk and Scruton. It is a uniquely English speaking movement, and is resistant to universal applications, meaning not only might it be different in England than Australia than Canada than US, but that it ought to be because a different tradition is being conserved. In this way it has a lot of similarities to postmodernism, which makes sense when you look into the political opposition of the pre-postmodern philosophers and the socialist thinkers in 1930s/40s Germany.
About time
I'd love your take on endnotes video series on conservativism ang fascism
I
*Innuendo studios
It is well known in the psychiatric profession that there is a link between liberalism and emotional instability.
Undoubtedly the two most consistently found relationships are the positive effect of conscientiousness on right-wing voting and the positive effect of openness to experience on left-wing voting. Conscientious individuals are theorised to be more conservative because they take greater heed of social norms, valuing order and accomplishments that are socially proscribed. Open-minded individuals are more accepting of unconventional social behavior and unorthodox economic policies that are generally associated with the left.
There has been reasonably consistent evidence that a third trait, emotional instability, often called neuroticism, increases one’s chance of left-wing views.
It honestly baffles me the lack of moderation that exists in the political spectrum.
How to be conservative:
1. Pick a problem in society
2. Instead of seeking a solution, point to the problems with the people trying to solve the problem
3. Scream out to world "look at these peoples problems!"
4. Use that to justify doing NOTHING about the original problem in society
5. *bonus* use this logic to justify supporting the people actually making the problem worse!
Did I get this right?
I think a pretty good argument for conservativism is in Plato's dialogues where he uses the character Socrates to spell out his views. Plato believed that loge outside a well-ordered society isn't freedom, but anarchy. This might be a premise liberals accept as well, so the job of a liberal would be to argue for why a differently ordered society would be better.
I believe we should move forward with incremental or continual change to let the action set the ideas that we consider good or acceptable.
But I also believe there are no conditions for calm changes and solidification all the time and that, people in power have few justifications to lead
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's broke.
If it ain’t broke,
make sure to take it to maintainance once a week, keep it well oiled and ensure proper storage is used.😊
I might have a Conservative side.
I can't understand conservatism uncoupled from Christianity. I can understand where liberalism intersects with Christianity on a few issues. The preamble to the Declaration of Independence is the justification for our Federal government within the limits proscribed in the Constitution. I do believe that human nature is imperfectable but improvable or laws would be meaningless. I believe that government was instituted by God for punishing evildoers and rewarding those who do good.
Would Conservatism in a Communist society be to preserve Communism?
Well done video overall, however, I believe it projects a very warped description of what the "conserve" in conservatism is all about. Your video fixates on it being about conserving social hierarchies. While that might be a notion for some conservatives, that is not at all the central theme of true conservatives. The "conserve" in conservatism is much more about preserving the fundamental principles set forth by our founders, such as the separation of powers and limited/decentralized government power, as well as the belief that as much political power as possible should be kept as local as possible where it is most controlled by citizens. This concept does still allow for social progress and progressive movement, just not at the expense of those principles. You are correct that such a philosophy inevitably leads to slower and more incremental changes, but it is not at all about people maintaining their inherited social status and means as your video emphases. The liberal view believes that any change that leads to better immediate outcomes for individuals, particularly those who have not been treated equally by society, is justified even if those fundamental founding principles of decentralized and limited federal power are violated (i.e. the creation of a federal dept of education). In other words; the ends justify the means. The true conservative should be for social progress and a push towards a society that creates more equal opportunity for all, however, such progress must only be made within the parameters of the founding principles. To do otherwise means that while short term gains in social equity may be accomplished, simultaneously our core principles and governmental limits are being eroded away. As a result, our system of government will become more and more centralized and will eventually decay into a totalitarian from of government , thereby rendering all incremental progress for individuals moot when our society reverts back to one where the masses are being treated as the subjects of the very few in charge.
actually you are describing classical liberalism which thomas jefferson believed in as well as presidents such as Andrew jackson.
Carneades , I have something to ask you , Its not related to the video . You say that you are a skeptic and that you are not backing many of the positions in your videos . Yet you claim to be an atheist . I don't understand how that works . Are you skeptical about the atheist position as well . Or can you as a skeptic believe completely in a world view without contradiction .
I wouldn't presume to speak for Carneades, but I don't think he claims to be an atheist. And yes, he's a skeptic with regards to the atheist position as well.
@@subliminallime4321 I've heard him say that he's an atheist in several of his videos tho .
@@abhaysreekanth Which video? Even in his video about the difference between Dogmatic Atheism & Skeptical Atheism I don't think he claims to be either.
@@subliminallime4321 yeah I've heard it in totally unrelated videos . It's not in his videos about atheism .
I don't remember correctly which ones because I've seen a lot of his videos .
An atheist is one who does not believe that God exists.
Carneades professes to not believe anything, as a skeptic.
Consequently he does not believe that God exists, which makes him an atheist.
That doesn't entail that be believes that God does not exist, which would be the only contradiction with skepticism.
Modern conservatives enthusiastically support the growth, expansion, and progression of both the economy and technology, yet technology is the least gradual and empirically tested component in existence.
This is why the Conservative Party is in shambles. The party and its people have sacrificed their true morals and political philosophy in the name of progress in the technological and economical sense.
It's so apparent reading the provided definitions where the "less nuanced" version of conservatism fits in. “(People) should be free to find that place (in the societal hierarchies), but not free to question or undermine the hierarchy itself." Is this really a position that all people should be expected to go along with - that they need to know their place and never strive for a better one? "We should strengthen the institutions that have brought us so far" - in this definition, who is "us"? The beneficiaries alone? The division is written in the subtext.
“The conservative sees all of the benefits of existing structures and argues that these should be preserved" It's all right there. Conservatism only works if someone is on top and someone is on the bottom. They think you belong there. They oppose anything that challenges their own personal standing in the hierarchy, earned or unearned.
"Inequality for the conservative is not a bad thing"
In addition to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," conservatives also believe that even if it is broke, don't fix it.
That's quite a generalisation there, TMM... I'd of expected better from you.
Political and unrooted statement. The premise of if something Isn’t broke don’t fix it directly contradicts the latter half of your biases. As if it is not broke, these rules do not apply, and therefore it can be fixed. It’s more so if there’s something ethical In place creating good(a generalized form of it), then do not replace it with something bad. It’s in theory a solid ideal as it’ll e.g. end slavery while simultaneously prevent slavery from being reborn, as long as it’s approached from an ethical stand in individualism roles/rights as referenced texts such as Plato’s Republic.
I wasn't expecting you to be familiar with carnaedes channel! Hopefully you will do another livestream soon, because I am quite interesting on what you think of them.
@@alfwok If it was never great you can't make it great again.
I think individual rights are very important. That is why I back the National Coalition Against Censorship. I also like the ACLU for the same reason.
I fully disagree with a lot of this.
I believe most people want a better world. But, we have differing views on what is better. Some people view inequality as a bad thing, while others view poverty as a bad thing. Some people want to limit the rights of individuals and businesses in order to improve the collective; while other people believe that limiting rights harms the collective. Etc...
Often, proposed progressive changes are changes that will empower the hierarchy, disguised as making a better world. For example, regulating businesses seems like it should limit their power, but it actually helps them monopolize.
Government must continuously validate its legitimacy to have any. And if it doesn't or can't it's "might makes right", which is animalistic and ethically regressive.
"Government must continually validate it's legitimacy" Says who? According to what standard?
"Animalistic and ethically regressive" this are just arbitrary value judgments that is just an excuse to deny reality as it is. Reality doesn't require your's or anyone else's approval of it for it still be reality.
Democrats.
the left playing by the speed limit.
Could also be, the right playing by the speed limit.
The argument that the opposition to conservatism does not want gradual and verified reforms, wants it all to be centrally directed and sudden, is, of course, a strawman of the first order. The real problem (if we accept this definition, which seems to be of questionable accuracy), the real problem is that conservatives think the existing hierarchical structures are *_not broken,_* whereas their opposition tends to think that many of them are, indeed, broken. Furthermore, in my experience, conservatives tend to be against grassroots movements, sometimes even when the members are themselves conservatives.